(October 10, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Kitan Wrote: Actually, he was correct with the usage of through.

Oh damn! Randy kudos this statement. No wonder god got intimidated over Babel. If he can do no better than to send idiots like Randy to represent him, he better not let us up there. Tear the place up.

Err..I think you mean Randy's brother.

(October 10, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Oh damn! Randy kudos this statement. No wonder god got intimidated over Babel. If he can do no better than to send idiots like Randy to represent him, he better not let us up there. Tear the place up.

Err..I think you mean Randy's brother.

I really don't think it is Randy, unless Randy is a very, very, very good actor.

His employment of language (or lack thereof, in comparison to his brother) is significantly different.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

(October 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Randys brother Wrote: Since am not an idiot,I believe through validity.

You obviously have a standard for what constitutes validity to which we poor ignorant atheists are not privy. How can we hope to fathom your opaque erudition?

You need faith!

---

(October 10, 2015 at 2:39 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Randys brother Wrote:

---

Well your lying to me!

The official books of the Bible

Old Testament
Pentateuch : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Historical books : Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees
Sapiential books : Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach
Prophetic books : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

New Testament
The Gospels : Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
Historical book : Acts
Pauline Epistles : Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
General Epistles : James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
Apocalypse : Revelation, aka The Apocalypse of St. John

Who decided on which ones were official and which were not?  (Hint: It wasn't your god)

(Hint:Thats what you believe)  

---

(October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Randys brother Wrote: Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.

Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).

You apparently didn't listen to a word I said. All your article does is criticize Finkelstein for being a skeptic, and implies that he's a Minimalist even though he is not, says he is not, and disagrees with the Minimalists on numerous accounts. The only serious scholar quoted in your referenced article is Kenneth Kitchen, an Evangelical Christian and Biblical Literalist.  That's exactly the opposite of what I meant when I said that you need to look to sources outside your original frame of reference.

You also clearly didn't watch Dr. Finkelstein's video, in which he explains several of the problems with the Tel Dan find, of which the author is apparently unaware, as referenced by the article you cited.

Edit to Add: Seriously, in reference to a guy who lives and works every day in the Holy Land, you referenced these guys:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.

Think on that for a little bit. No joke. Not being mean. I want you to really consider your biases.

(Another Google Maps photo of the place.)

And that's still a NO!

---

(October 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: via Imgflip Meme Maker

Stop calling me smart,I don't like it.

---

Right am going now.catch you guys later.

(October 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Randys brother Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: You apparently didn't listen to a word I said. All your article does is criticize Finkelstein for being a skeptic, and implies that he's a Minimalist even though he is not, says he is not, and disagrees with the Minimalists on numerous accounts. The only serious scholar quoted in your referenced article is Kenneth Kitchen, an Evangelical Christian and Biblical Literalist. That's exactly the opposite of what I meant when I said that you need to look to sources outside your original frame of reference.

You also clearly didn't watch Dr. Finkelstein's video, in which he explains several of the problems with the Tel Dan find, of which the author is apparently unaware, as referenced by the article you cited.

Edit to Add: Seriously, in reference to a guy who lives and works every day in the Holy Land, you referenced these guys:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.

Think on that for a little bit. No joke. Not being mean. I want you to really consider your biases.

(Another Google Maps photo of the place.)

And that's still a NO!

Why no? Why would you prefer to keep hearing the same thing, over and over, from people who will only ever agree with you because they started out with the same pre-suppositions that you did?

Why are you afraid to even look with an honest heart and an open mind, at what others have to say about it? ("Others" = experts in the field who are not just fellow Evangelicals. They may be Jews or Christians, but Evangelicals have a very particular skew to the way they look at things, because they make it a philosophical point to never agree with anything which might challenge what they already think is true. That's not scholarship, and it's not honesty.)

If you say "no" when you're shown that something you claimed is not a normal view of that subject, but only the view of one particular small sect (on the global scale, Evangelicals are small; they're only dominant in the deep south of the USA, where I am from), then you are willfully closing your mind and surrendering your intellectual honesty. To do that is to choose willful ignorance... on purpose.

That's madness! You must be smarter than that. You must! I have faith in you. I hope it is not misplaced.

(October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:11 pm)Randys brother Wrote: Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.

Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).

You apparently didn't listen to a word I said. All your article does is criticize Finkelstein for being a skeptic, and implies that he's a Minimalist even though he is not, says he is not, and disagrees with the Minimalists on numerous accounts. The only serious scholar quoted in your referenced article is Kenneth Kitchen, an Evangelical Christian and Biblical Literalist.  That's exactly the opposite of what I meant when I said that you need to look to sources outside your original frame of reference.

You also clearly didn't watch Dr. Finkelstein's video, in which he explains several of the problems with the Tel Dan find, of which the author is apparently unaware, as referenced by the article you cited.

Edit to Add: Seriously, in reference to a guy who lives and works every day in the Holy Land, you referenced these guys:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.

Think on that for a little bit. No joke. Not being mean. I want you to really consider your biases.

(Another Google Maps photo of the place.)

If Randy's argument needs the man to be a minimalist, then that's what he is, okay.

(October 10, 2015 at 2:49 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Err..I think you mean Randy's brother.

I really don't think it is Randy, unless Randy is a very, very, very good actor.

His employment of language (or lack thereof, in comparison to his brother) is significantly different.

I don't know...these posts have a very Randyish quality to them. Relentless, smarmy and distinctly smart-assed.
Randy invested at an insanely massive amount of time into this forum. Him just walking away from his work doesn't seem consistent with his online personality at all.

Hell, I could be wrong though. It's happened before.

(October 10, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:49 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I really don't think it is Randy, unless Randy is a very, very, very good actor.

His employment of language (or lack thereof, in comparison to his brother) is significantly different.

I don't know...these posts have a very Randyish quality to them. Relentless, smarmy and distinctly smart-assed.
Randy invested at an insanely massive amount of time into this forum. Him just walking away from his work doesn't seem consistent with his online personality at all.

Hell, I could be wrong though. It's happened before.

Despite us commonly calling him a moron (for expressing moronic opinions  that were mostly the result of willful ignorance and bias), Randy actually reads as a highly-intelligent person... he's just a jerk, which is not uncommon in really smart people who feel confident in their own beliefs. [Hey... where'd that mirror come from? Get that away from me!]

If they're brothers, and this one is his little brother who wants to be like smart bigger bro real bad,  then it's not surprising to me that their tone and beliefs are so similar. RB reads to me a lot more like a teenager, while Randy is in a pretty good college.

(October 10, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(October 10, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Oh damn! Randy kudos this statement. No wonder god got intimidated over Babel. If he can do no better than to send idiots like Randy to represent him, he better not let us up there. Tear the place up.

Err..I think you mean Randy's brother.

Hey, I'm not his brother's keeper.

Did Randy Carter (or was it Carson?) get banned? Why they let this joker come in who's so obviously the same idiot? Unless he has an evil twin.

Randy’s brother wrote:   If your arguments cannot stand without fiat credulity, we will ridicule them.   "the blue bit is were you go wrong one can pretend to ridicule them even if they are true."

drfuzzy wrote:  Um. Do you know what fiat credulity means?

Randy’s brother wrote:  Um. Do you know what am talking about   Yes I know what fiat credulity mean,I would define it as a solid will,wanting to believe and for you just the opposite.

drfuzzy Wrote:   fiat: a decree.  A statement such as "let it be done" by gawd causes a thing to be done.  That means a belief that you hold simply because "gawd said it, therefore I believe it" without any scientific proof to back up the statement.  Ergo, faith: the act of saying you know something that you don't know.

 Randy’s brother wrote:  Since am not an idiot,I believe through validity.

 drfuzzy wrote:  Validity - scientifically provable, measurable, re-testable fact.  Validity cannot be found in a book full of silly myths.

Randys brother Wrote: "Since am not an idiot,I believe through validity."

Rhondazvous Wrote:  You obviously have a standard for what constitutes validity to which we poor ignorant atheists are not privy. How can we hope to fathom your opaque erudition?

Randy's brother wrote:  You need faith!

Do you see how he just conveniently skipped over the definitions of “fiat credulity” and “validity” and went back to faith, which is defined as “I know something that I don’t actually know, and no one on earth can prove, so you can’t prove me wrong.”  I said it, my imaginary friend said it, and my book of fables said it, so it’s true.