You did not answer the
pivotal questions, as they are related to this debate topic. Below, will be my 3rd attempt. They will be highlighted in
red, and also rephrased (again) for even further clarity.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:22 pm
Then there's no indication you are actually interested in what I have to say, even if I do post a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus. Rather, this entire exercise of yours is to derail the topic and avoid discussing the current topic, which is the Turin Shroud.
I would be interested in what you have to say, but you refuse to say it, in an actual thread labelled the Exodus, for people to see, without running into in this thread by some happy accident. And, again, going through many subtopics, one-by-one, in one main topic, seems counterproductive, if you want the majority of the populous to know what you are even saying. Again, unless someone were to ask YOU, they may never know that the 'flood' is in posts 300-440, and 'the Exodus' is in 665-785, etc etc etc....
*********************************************************
YOU No, the discussion of the resurrection is the capstone topic of this thread. And the TS is presented as artifact evidence of the resurrection, so the discussion of the TS is of central importance to this entire thread.
POI Then maybe the title shouldn't be about whether we can trust the Bible or not, based upon errors. Because I already posed some follow up... It's more than clerical errors. It's about possibly getting extraordinary events wrong. And how many of those need to be unfounded to make the Bible no longer trustworthy? Maybe instead, just fast-forward to the resurrection claim, and this claim alone?
YOU Yes, I recognize that. Unfortunately a forum is not a good method to present information in an organized way.
POI Then doing so anyways will not yield much productivity.
YOU Why are these important if I've already stated it is doctrinal issues that are the important issues. And I also stated I believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, global flood, tower of Babel, and Hebrews in Egypt. What else is there that needs to be true in order for Genesis to be accepted as reliable?
POI If you would answer the
pivotal questions in
red, we may actually get somewhere. I'm not asking what you 'believe'.
1. Do the Genesis claims actually need to be true? Yes or No.
2. If it should turn out that the described Genesis events indeed did not happen, is it logical for a seeker to rule YWHW out of the 'creator' equation? Yes or No?
3. If the Exodus was another event, which did not actually happen in reality, does this matter? Yes or No?
4. Is the Resurrection the only claim which needs to actually be investigated after all? Yes or No?
YOU All claims I've made I've backed up with empirical evidence, and primarily from secular sources. So the standard I've used is no different than anything else used outside the Bible.
POI Interesting. So when you argue in favor of an actual Exodus account, for example, you do not lean towards publications, which attempt to prove its veracity because they are already believers in this extraordinary claim? In my investigate, consensus is that a severe lack in evidence exists to support such an
extraordinary claim?
YOU The issue is rather you do not want to read through the "wall of text" that I've already presented.
POI That's not the issue. I read through it. But this is not how debate works. I'm not in a Christian history class, where I'm asked, by the instructor, to give a 5000 word essay on my disagreement(s), based upon a few article links.
YOU Again I ask, if I did provide a single source that gave a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus, would that resolve your issue?
POI Again, depends on the given point? But I still do not know what the point would even be? To fast-forward a bit, here's my starting point(s).... The lack in evidence to support such a large claim.....
I trust we would agree that an Exodus account is quite the large and extraordinary claim.... As such, seems as though it would at least be clear that millions of Israelites were even in this region, at this time. But the lack in evidence supports no such claim. Further, why did no Egyptians write about Israelites in this region, when Egyptians kept meticulous recordings of events?
All in all, this is a rather large claim. I trust we agree on this point. And yet, only the Bible had something to say about this claim? Where mounds of evidence should otherwise have also been left behind, we have basically almost nothing? We have virtually no evidence, if not any at all, that millions of people inhabited a particular region at a particular time, for 100's of years?
YOU It does say why we should trust the Bible. And they can then read a comprehensive series of arguments why it should be considered trustworthy without finding all the threads scattered throughout the forum.
POI Depends on how you answer the Q's in
red.
YOU I've been trying to veer this back to the TS and yet everyone keeps trying to derail the topic. And will anybody try to stay on topic? Doesn't appear that way.
POI Let's await how you address the Q's in
red.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
Calcium (Ca) is an element. Calcium is Calcium, but never mind. Again you are not using a secular source. This comes from shroud.com. But let's look...
