Yep but it is worse trying to have discourse with someone who is not open minded.
You now you say ït is in the bible but how do you now suddenly rely on a myth to support your argument ?
it is obvious that you link to William Dever does not confirm what you say !
That's nice.
Ducking and diving again Isee. It would appear that you don't actually phrase your replies correctly !
So why give him as a link to substantiate your claim?
@ Outhouse - message 450 refers.
He was not commenting on biblical matters. He was commenting on HOW Ezekiel tried to explain what he saw.
Try reading post no 445 in full.
Well now are you a scholar ? Your profile indicates you are in sales !
No bull
When you were still in diapers I already knew and understood Myths, folklore etc. etc.
I immediately saw your mistake but alas you are once again not admitting that your link to Dever and what you claim he said nowhere to be found in that specific article; As such it is the wrong...
His thoughts are quite plain to see. He did not agree with Erich von Daniken's exposition of the matter and from an engineerig and not religious point of view he attempted to discredit von Daniken's view regarding "alien "visits"
From the article-
********* Quote *********
my own involvement...
So I did without success but in you jumped defending him left right and centre without really understanding what it is all about.
With so many facetious remarks and speak to the hand emoticons any person indulging in such activities will have to show a vast improvement before I will even...
Sheesh he said he was an engineer and that religious matters he was leaving to others.
Since when if someone else places things from a book in a blog must it be in the form of a thesis.
Once again he is NOT the author of the blog and he plainly stated that he viewed it from a non-religious...
No! You are still missing the point.
I am more than capable to do the same and much more.
He needs to comply with his own requirements. Such requirements are not only for others; He needs to set an example.
I looked at the William Dever link but alas that article holds naught of what you claim.
The following are two extracts from that article that contradict your claim -
********** Quote **********
Dever argued that this 'folk' religion, with its local altars and cultic objects, amulets and...
Your link is not relevant to the question I asked.
This man clearly stated his reasons which was "to debunk Erich von Daniken". It is quite obvious that he was scornful etc of what von Daniken said.
Of course it can be construed as an attempt to label this engineer as a crackpot or to...
Yet he got a patent from studying it?
If you read it then you will find he wrote a book about it. His initial aim was to debunk what Erich von Daniken had to say about it.
In what way can an investigation by a NASA engineer be regarded as "clearly Apologetic rhetoric"?
I based my argument on the following.-- viz proven or rejected-- Thanks for the additional info -
***** quote *****
The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can...
A theory is no longer a theory when it becomes a fact or is discarded.
.It reminds me of what Dr Isaac Asimov said. A theory is not wrong it just needs updating'.
Like the theory that there was nothing, just a vacuum, in outer space. This theory was totally discarded when it was found that...