Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

Keeping idiots off of the mountain is not a concession. Where is the peer reviewed work that supports their claims? Amateurs can be very easily confused.

The archeologists aren't allowed in. Its political.

But, some people have gone over anyway. Got videos and photographs.

Its not just the nountain with a black top, its chariot weels in sea. Its oasises. Its split rock with erosion marks. Its pillars by mountain. Its alter. Its carvings of bulls. Its a bitter lake along the journey too. Its rocks with foot carvings as a boundary near at the tail end of the exodus journey. Everything matches.

You dont need to have a PHD in archeology in order to have half a brain and do archeology work.

 

[Jollybear]

What makes you think that Jospehus is any sort of authority when it comes to mountains in Arabia?

He was a historian. And he likely was well red up on available sources and compiled his account.

Why do you think hes wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The archeologists aren't allowed in. Its political.

But, some people have gone over anyway. Got videos and photographs.

Its not just the nountain with a black top, its chariot weels in sea. Its oasises. Its split rock with erosion marks. Its pillars by mountain. Its alter. Its carvings of bulls. Its a bitter lake along the journey too. Its rocks with foot carvings as a boundary near at the tail end of the exodus journey. Everything matches.

You dont need to have a PHD in archeology in order to have half a brain and do archeology work.

So no reliable accounts, just some hacks that want to believe a myth.

And no, one does not need a degree. One merely needs to know how to do one's work properly. Too bad all you have are hacks that could only say "It looks burnt to me" at best.

The decision to keep amateurs off of the site appears to be well founded by the examples that you brought up. Amateurs can harm an archaeological site. The lack of interest in it by those trained in the trade does not bode well for your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was a historian. And he likely was well red up on available sources and compiled his account.

Why do you think hes wrong?

He was a writer of what the people of an area claimed. He was also a Jew so he would have believed many of the Jewish myths. That was an area that would have been well outside of his area of what expertise that he had. He is not a reliable source for this sort of tale.

 

[Jollybear]

So no reliable accounts, just some hacks that want to believe a myth.

If you want to ad hom the source, go right ahead.

And no, one does not need a degree. One merely needs to know how to do one's work properly. Too bad all you have are hacks that could only say "It looks burnt to me" at best.

Thats not all they did, they did alot of work. And the results speak for themselves. And they broke the rocks open too, like i said before. It was light brown inside, black outside.

The decision to keep amateurs off of the site appears to be well founded by the examples that you brought up. Amateurs can harm an archaeological site. The lack of interest in it by those trained in the trade does not bode well for your claims.

Oh theres interest, but the arabian government wont allow it.

He was a writer of what the people of an area claimed. He was also a Jew so he would have believed many of the Jewish myths. That was an area that would have been well outside of his area of what expertise that he had. He is not a reliable source for this sort of tale.

Paul also, like i quoted already, said it was in arabia too.

So, theres two independent sources.

Hey, if you dont believe them, fine. But the evidence ITSELF, speaks volumes ALONE.

If your interested in debating the artifacts, and things at the locations, id be glad to go down that road with you. But ad homing the source, im not going there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to ad hom the source, go right ahead.

That is not an ad hom. It was an observation.

Thats not all they did, they did alot of work. And the results speak for themselves. And they broke the rocks open too, like i said before. It was light brown inside, black outside.

They claim to have done that. And all they noticed was that weathered rocks had a different color on the surface than on the interior. That hardly supports the claim of being 'brunt' since a color difference is the norm with weathered rocks. One of the reasons that geologists carry a rock hammer is to break open a rock so that they can properly judge what it is made of.

Oh theres interest, but the arabian government wont allow it.

Another unsubstantiated claim. You do realize that since you are the one that began with the positive assertion that the burden of proof is upon you. So far you really have not made your case.

[quoite]



Paul also, like i quoted already, said it was in arabia too.

So, theres two independent sources.

Hey, if you dont believe them, fine. But the evidence ITSELF, speaks volumes ALONE.

If your interested in debating the artifacts, and things at the locations, id be glad to go down that road with you. But ad homing the source, im not going there.[/QUOTE]

Paul as a source? You are kidding me. And they are not "independent". They were both Jewish. You would need a non-Jew to claim to have two "independent" sources. And the problem is that you can't seem to find any reliable evidence for your claims. Show me some reliable evidence and I will change my mind. If you post the same sort of nonsense that a Muslim would post to support his views I will not believe you any more than you would believe the Muslim.

 

[Jollybear]

That is not an ad hom. It was an observation.

Funny you couldent "observe" the evidence that they documented.

Thats what ad hominums are. Addressing the charectors rather then there evidence and arguments.

They claim to have done that. And all they noticed was that weathered rocks had a different color on the surface than on the interior. That hardly supports the claim of being 'brunt' since a color difference is the norm with weathered rocks. One of the reasons that geologists carry a rock hammer is to break open a rock so that they can properly judge what it is made of.

Have you seen a image of the mountain?

Another unsubstantiated claim. You do realize that since you are the one that began with the positive assertion that the burden of proof is upon you. So far you really have not made your case.

Have you seen the documentary i gave joel?

Paul as a source? You are kidding me.

No...im not kidding.

And they are not "independent". They were both Jewish.

And YOU must be kidding? Paul is his own person and josephus is his own person. Both independent sources.

You would need a non-Jew to claim to have two "independent" sources.

No i dont. There two seperate people who wrote seperate works. There independent. I strongly disagree with you on that.

And the problem is that you can't seem to find any reliable evidence for your claims. Show me some reliable evidence and I will change my mind. If you post the same sort of nonsense that a Muslim would post to support his views I will not believe you any more than you would believe the Muslim.

Have you seen the documentary? The evidence is in there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny you couldent "observe" the evidence that they documented.

Thats what ad hominums are. Addressing the charectors rather then there evidence and arguments.

I asked for reliable sources. You gave none. And no, you have it backwards as usual It was first observed that no reliable evidence was provided, then the observation that you are relying on liars and fools was added.

If you need help I can probably explain it to you.

Have you seen a image of the mountain?

So what? Again, several things could cause that including a cloud. You need something much stronger. There are a couple of saying that you need to learn. The first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that the top of the mountain was magically colored. That puts a huge burden of proof upon you. Second is the saying that claims that are handwaved in can be handwaved away. At this point you are just flapping your hands.

Have you seen the documentary i gave joel?

"Documentaries" especially of that sort are not evidence.

No...im not kidding.

Then a handwave refutes your claims Paul is even a worse source than Josephus.

And YOU must be kidding? Paul is his own person and josephus is his own person. Both independent sources.

So you do not know what an independent source is .

No i dont. There two seperate people who wrote seperate works. There independent. I strongly disagree with you on that.

Nope, try again. If they believe the same myths, and that is what they based their claims upon then their beliefs are not independent and they are not independent sources.

Have you seen the documentary? The evidence is in there.

If the evidence is real you can find a reliable source. Highly biased "documentaries" probably made by idiots are not evidence. By the way, that was not an ad hominem either. It was an observation that so called documentaries are not evidence and a reasonable conclusion drawn about the makers of the so called documentary.

 

[Jollybear]

I asked for reliable sources. You gave none. And no, you have it backwards as usual It was first observed that no reliable evidence was provided, then the observation that you are relying on liars and fools was added.

Have you ever told a lie in your life? If yes, does that now mean everything you now say is a lie? They found stuff, videod it. Not just them, but others have too at different times.

And if you wish to say no evidence has been provided, then that means you have to describe WHY the evidence is NOT evidence. You cant just say its not. Thats not debating. Thats arguing.

If you need help I can probably explain it to you.

You should have just went ahead and explained. But yes, explain.

So what? Again, several things could cause that including a cloud.

What about all the photographs and videos? They all show the barier line and black top. Plus the people who broke open the rocks.

You need something much stronger. There are a couple of saying that you need to learn. The first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And theres something you need to learn too, its when evidence and argument is presented, ADDRESS IT, rather then the charectors.

You are claiming that the top of the mountain was magically colored. That puts a huge burden of proof upon you. Second is the saying that claims that are handwaved in can be handwaved away. At this point you are just flapping your hands.

AT THIS POINT im merely just presenting the mountain with its black top asking for your explanation of it. Without claiming anyone of dishonesty. Thats ehat im doing right now. Yes, granted i believe the exodus story. But, at this time in the discussion, im just presenting a fact of a mountain with a black top that id like a good explanation for.

"Documentaries" especially of that sort are not evidence.

What about documentaries done by naturalists with a naturalist view, would you consider those evidence?

Then a handwave refutes your claims Paul is even a worse source than Josephus.
So you do not know what an independent source is .
Nope, try again. If they believe the same myths, and that is what they based their claims upon then their beliefs are not independent and they are not independent sources.

The same belief does not mean the same source. If i gave you 2 sources saying sinai was in 2 different places, then youd say niether is reliable because they contradict. They are 2 sources at 2 different time periods and they say the same thing.

If the evidence is real you can find a reliable source. Highly biased "documentaries" probably made by idiots are not evidence.

Probably means you are deciding that before you even look at the documentary and before you know that for sure. Thats ad homining the source.

Atleast your doing it to the source and not too me. Im trying to look at some positive in it. Its hard though.

By the way, that was not an ad hominem either. It was an observation that so called documentaries are not evidence and a reasonable conclusion drawn about the makers of the so called documentary.

From wiki

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

From dictionary

1. of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. 2.
   relating to or associated with a particular person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you ever told a lie in your life? If yes, does that now mean everything you now say is a lie? They found stuff, videod it. Not just them, but others have too at different times.

And if you wish to say no evidence has been provided, then that means you have to describe WHY the evidence is NOT evidence. You cant just say its not. Thats not debating. Thats arguing.

They found a dark layer of rock at best That on its own is hardly evidence that it was 'burnt' and no evidence at all that it was burned by magic.

You should have just went ahead and explained. But yes, explain.

I already have, but one more time. Saying that someone is wrong because they are an idiot is an ad hominem. Pointing out that someone is wrong and concluding that someone is an idiot because of that is not an ad hominem. Please note I never said that they were wrong because they were idiots. The order is extremely important in this.

What about all the photographs and videos? They all show the barier line and black top. Plus the people who broke open the rocks.

All that means at best that they showed there is a dark colored strata. You can't go from dark to "It was burned by magic". In fact if anything since this would have occurred roughly 2,500 years ago or more the fact that it did not weather away tells us that this is probably not from being "burnt".

And theres something you need to learn too, its when evidence and argument is presented, ADDRESS IT, rather then the charectors.

But not reliable evidence was presented. And that tells us that those presenting these claims are fools. Once again, please note the order. You keep getting it backwards.

AT THIS POINT im merely just presenting the mountain with its black top asking for your explanation of it. Without claiming anyone of dishonesty. Thats ehat im doing right now. Yes, granted i believe the exodus story. But, at this time in the discussion, im just presenting a fact of a mountain with a black top that id like a good explanation for.

Hardly an explanation. It is just a WAG, a Wild Donkeyed Guess.

What about documentaries done by naturalists with a naturalist view, would you consider those evidence?

Real "naturalists" do not present their evidence in documentaries.

The same belief does not mean the same source. If i gave you 2 sources saying sinai was in 2 different places, then youd say niether is reliable because they contradict. They are 2 sources at 2 different time periods and they say the same thing.

You used a qualifier, You used the word "independent". They clearly are not independent.

Probably means you are deciding that before you even look at the documentary and before you know that for sure. Thats ad homining the source.

No, it is an observation. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Atleast your doing it to the source and not too me. Im trying to look at some positive in it. Its hard though.

I don't want to make it personal.

From wiki

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

From dictionary

1. of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. 2.
   relating to or associated with a particular person.

And please note that I did not do that. Pointing out the people involved is after the fact when they failed to provide proper evidence.

Let's use Wiki again:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The so called evidence did not come close to this standard. Tell me, what reasonable test would show that they were wrong about their claims? If that test exists did they do that? If not then their findings are not evidence by definition.

 

[Jollybear]

They found a dark layer of rock at best That on its own is hardly evidence that it was 'burnt' and no evidence at all that it was burned by magic.

What do you mean by a dark "layer"?

Also lets put "its burnt by magic" on the back burner for now. Lets just deal with the mountain itself and why it could be black on the top with its boundary line.

I already have, but one more time. Saying that someone is wrong because they are an idiot is an ad hominem. Pointing out that someone is wrong and concluding that someone is an idiot because of that is not an ad hominem. Please note I never said that they were wrong because they were idiots. The order is extremely important in this.

Ok, yea...i can agree that someone can be an idiot because they wer wrong, but not be wrong because they wer an idiot.

But also, you do realize some people can be just wrong without being an idiot too.

But i disagree that in your case you got the order correct.

You did not POINT OUT why they wer wrong. And did you look at the documentary?

All that means at best that they showed there is a dark colored strata.

Strata? I think your confusing this. There is no strata or sedemenrary layer here. Its a black top mountain.

You can't go from dark to "It was burned by magic". In fact if anything since this would have occurred roughly 2,500 years ago or more the fact that it did not weather away tells us that this is probably not from being "burnt".

Whats it from then? Joel posited that it could have been from a meteor shower. You say from a cload or strata or weathering.

Each of these explanations pose there own problems.

But not reliable evidence was presented. And that tells us that those presenting these claims are fools. Once again, please note the order. You keep getting it backwards.

You havent told me why its not reliable. All your doing is saying its not reliable. You saying its not reliable, that in itself is unreliable.

Real "naturalists" do not present their evidence in documentaries.

Really now? I dont know what to say to that, other then absolutely absurd. Its mind boggling to hear that.

I take it you believe in macro evolution yes? Well, ive seen a geographic documentary presenting THAT. And im sure you would say that would be evidence it presents, yes, no?

Just how do naturalists present evidence to the world? If not by a documentary, what, by an article? A magazine? A book? What?

Logically, id think you could present the same evidence in all of those avenues.

I just dont understand your rational here at all. I mean AT ALL.

You used a qualifier, You used the word "independent". They clearly are not independent.

Paul and josephus dont know each other. They wrote there own accounts. Both of them believing the sinai exodus story does not mean they had to both say the sinai mountain was in arabia. Yet both said it was in arabia.

2 independent sources.

No, it is an observation. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Tell me what evidence is then? Educate me.

I don't want to make it personal.

Well thats good. Lets see if you can continue that.

Let's use Wiki again:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The so called evidence did not come close to this standard. Tell me, what reasonable test would show that they were wrong about their claims? If that test exists did they do that? If not then their findings are not evidence by definition.

How did there findings not pass this test? I mean, how does finding a mountain with a black top, one of its kind amongs the others, with an alter at its foot, 12 pillers, a chariot weel at sea, a split rock, a bitter lake, an oasis. Rocks with carvings of footprints, carvings of bulls on the mountain.

How is that stuff not emperical?

I just dont get your rational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by a dark "layer"?

Also lets put "its burnt by magic" on the back burner for now. Lets just deal with the mountain itself and why it could be black on the top with its boundary line.

Different strata or layers of rock are often different colors. That a mountain has a darker strata on top is not that big of a deal. And like it or not you are the one that is claiming magic.

Ok, yea...i can agree that someone can be an idiot because they wer wrong, but not be wrong because they wer an idiot.

Still not quite getting it.

But also, you do realize some people can be just wrong without being an idiot too.

But i disagree that in your case you got the order correct.

You did not POINT OUT why they wer wrong. And did you look at the documentary?

I did point out why they were wrong, but you ignored it. They did not properly document their work. They did not properly study the rocks that interested them so much. At best they were ignorant fools and at worst they were liars.

Strata? I think your confusing this. There is no strata or sedemenrary layer here. Its a black top mountain.

How do you know? What is the mountain made of? You have no clue, nor do the people that you follow. They as much as admitted it.

Whats it from then? Joel posited that it could have been from a meteor shower. You say from a cload or strata or weathering.

Each of these explanations pose there own problems.

I have no idea. But saying "It looks burnt, I guess God did it" is rather idiotic to say the least.

You havent told me why its not reliable. All your doing is saying its not reliable. You saying its not reliable, that in itself is unreliable.

Yes I have. You really need to pay attention. If it is not peer reviewed it is almost certainly unreliable. People that do not know enough to get their work peer reviewed are unqualified to tell you what they saw. If a person knows enough to have his work peer reviewed and doesn't then he is almost certainly lying. By avoiding peer review they automatically disqualify their work.

Really now? I dont know what to say to that, other then absolutely absurd. Its mind boggling to hear that.

I take it you believe in macro evolution yes? Well, ive seen a geographic documentary presenting THAT. And im sure you would say that would be evidence it presents, yes, no?

Just how do naturalists present evidence to the world? If not by a documentary, what, by an article? A magazine? A book? What?

Logically, id think you could present the same evidence in all of those avenues.

I just dont understand your rational here at all. I mean AT ALL.

Yes, I know what macroevolution is. I bet that you don't. And no, a documentary on evolution would not be evidence. It can be educational. But if a documentary is not based on reliable sources it is of no more use than "documentaries" on ancient aliens and other nonsense. Real scientists present their evidence through the process of peer review. They publish in well respected professional peer reviewed journals.

Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct, but it does eliminate foolish and ignorant mistakes. It sets up a standard that people must meet for their claims to be taken seriously. Those documentaries on evolution were almost certainly based upon peer reviewed science. The claims about the mountain we are discussing were not.

Paul and josephus dont know each other. They wrote there own accounts. Both of them believing the sinai exodus story does not mean they had to both say the sinai mountain was in arabia. Yet both said it was in arabia.

2 independent sources.

You can repeat that error as often as you like. You will still be wrong.

Tell me what evidence is then? Educate me.

Did you not read the article that I linked? In the sciences there is a standard to meet. One must first develop a testable hypothesis. An idea that can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong. If it passes those tests then one can begin to claim that they have evidence. The problem is that others get to test that hypothesis as well. If they can show it is wrong then there is no evidence for it.

Well thats good. Lets see if you can continue that.

That was undeservedly snarky.

How did there findings not pass this test? I mean, how does finding a mountain with a black top, one of its kind amongs the others, with an alter at its foot, 12 pillers, a chariot weel at sea, a split rock, a bitter lake, an oasis. Rocks with carvings of footprints, carvings of bulls on the mountain.

How is that stuff not emperical?

I just dont get your rational.

LOL!! There were no chariot wheels found in the sea. Now you tipped your hand. You are using followers of a known fraud. They disqualify themselves by doing so. But thanks for the laughs.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If someone came back form the dead today it would be high!!!!

Yeah, but lots of people come back from clinical death.

But people were easy to impress back then. It was a miracle to cure leprosy. Now we just give you some antibiotics and you're on your way. No muss, no fuss.

 

[Jollybear]

Different strata or layers of rock are often different colors. That a mountain has a darker strata on top is not that big of a deal. And like it or not you are the one that is claiming magic.

Im aware of sedimentary layers. THIS mountain and its black top is not sedementary layers. Just an elementary look at it reveals that.

For you to make up an explanation to explain the black top, if that explanation does not fit due to logical problems, then to force it to fit, THAT IS A CLAIM TO MAGIC. Why? Because if it dont fit, even despite it being a natural explanation, it still take magic for it to happen that way IF the said explanation does not fit.

I did point out why they were wrong, but you ignored it. They did not properly document their work. They did not properly study the rocks that interested them so much. At best they were ignorant fools and at worst they were liars.

No, you didnt point out why they wer wrong. And i bet you did not even watch the documentary in order to see what they all did. Yet you wanna call them fools. Well, what does that make you? Dont go by a double standard.

How do you know? What is the mountain made of? You have no clue, nor do the people that you follow. They as much as admitted it.

I dont know what the mountain is made of. But, as for them knowing or not, how do you know they dont know what its made of? Did you find that out? If so, do you have a source proving your assertion that they dont know what the mountain is made of?

But hey, since you mention it, that would be a good google search. I think i will look that up. Hopefully i can find it. Sometimes its burried somewhere. But that dont mean its not known.

I have no idea. But saying "It looks burnt, I guess God did it" is rather idiotic to say the least.

Well, like i said, lets put the "magic fire piller" on the back burner for now and lets find out what, if any, logical, natural explanation could be for the black top on the mountain. One that FITS preferabely. Because as of right now, we have the best site that makes the exodus LOOK real.

Yes I have. You really need to pay attention. If it is not peer reviewed it is almost certainly unreliable. People that do not know enough to get their work peer reviewed are unqualified to tell you what they saw. If a person knows enough to have his work peer reviewed and doesn't then he is almost certainly lying. By avoiding peer review they automatically disqualify their work.

I like how you kept it honest there. You said "ALMOST". And i agree with that.

But, id take it a step further and say peer reviewed is NOT a perfect process.

And just because someone does not get there discovery peer reviewed does not disqualify there work. The mountain with its other artifacts are still there weather peer reviewed or not.

You see, when they discovered the site and documented it; which has been awhile now, all levels of society can SERVE as its own peer review. This happens in the form of cretics. People who critique the work. And people who believe it but promote further combing through the evidence. All of that, IS IN ITS OWN RIGHT a peer reviewing going on. Just without having to submit fees to a peer review company.

What makes this "peer review" through a company some kind of perfect process for you? Why do you put that on a pedestal?

Yes, I know what macroevolution is. I bet that you don't.

You bet i dont? You just love asserting to know everybody, dont you? Thats a major blunder of yours. If i wer you, id work on that. Change your approuch. Be more....humble. it work better in your favor.

And no, a documentary on evolution would not be evidence. It can be educational. But if a documentary is not based on reliable sources it is of no more use than "documentaries" on ancient aliens and other nonsense. Real scientists present their evidence through the process of peer review. They publish in well respected professional peer reviewed journals.

Ok.....so if a documentary presented "reliable" sources about evolution then the documentary would be presenting evidence, right......?

Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct, but it does eliminate foolish and ignorant mistakes.

Ok, so how do they determine what is foolish and a mistake?

It sets up a standard that people must meet for their claims to be taken seriously.

Whats that standard may i ask? (Notice with your post, im peer reviewing it)

Those documentaries on evolution were almost certainly based upon peer reviewed science. The claims about the mountain we are discussing were not.

And again, are artifacts and locations fake just because there not peer reviewed by this traditional process? Again, the word peer means to look keenly at or anylize. Thats what wer doing now with the subject. And we are reviewing it.

Also even if he submitted his work for peer review along with the fees for it, how are those people gonna go over and comb through the dessert location? They need permits from the arabian government or just sneak in and check. But, they dont do it that way. And permits to do this isnt happening. The arabian government is not issuing it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im aware of sedimentary layers. THIS mountain and its black top is not sedementary layers. Just an elementary look at it reveals that.

For you to make up an explanation to explain the black top, if that explanation does not fit due to logical problems, then to force it to fit, THAT IS A CLAIM TO MAGIC. Why? Because if it dont fit, even despite it being a natural explanation, it still take magic for it to happen that way IF the said explanation does not fit.

No, you have no clue as to what it is made of. Or at least you have not demonstrated any knowledge. Luckily I can Google search. Ron Wyatt not only did not find "Mt. Sinai" He misidentified the mountain that he found. He thought that he found Jabal al-Lawz - Wikipedia when in reality he found Jabal Maqla - Wikipedia . That mountains name means "Burnt Mountain" And it is not burnt. It is topped with a layer of dark colored rock. Nothing burnt about it:

"The summit of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This is the same granite that comprises Jabal al-Lawz.[4] Jabal Maqla is about 7 kilometers to the south, and a few hundred meters lower."

No, you didnt point out why they wer wrong. And i bet you did not even watch the documentary in order to see what they all did. Yet you wanna call them fools. Well, what does that make you? Dont go by a double standard.

Yes I did. Many times. Let me explain it to you one more time: They did not put their work through the process of peer review. That means that their work is worthless. They were either liars or idiots, you can choose which one. This should not be so hard to figure out.

I dont know what the mountain is made of. But, as for them knowing or not, how do you know they dont know what its made of? Did you find that out? If so, do you have a source proving your assertion that they dont know what the mountain is made of?

Because they made idiotic and ignorant claims about it that a minimal amount of research would have turned up.

But hey, since you mention it, that would be a good google search. I think i will look that up. Hopefully i can find it. Sometimes its burried somewhere. But that dont mean its not known.

It took me less than five minutes. But I probably know more what to look for than you do.

Well, like i said, lets put the "magic fire piller" on the back burner for now and lets find out what, if any, logical, natural explanation could be for the black top on the mountain. One that FITS preferabely. Because as of right now, we have the best site that makes the exodus LOOK real.

Are you misspelling the word "pillow" I have heard some people pronounce it that way. Spell checkers, like Google, are your friends

I like how you kept it honest there. You said "ALMOST". And i agree with that.

But, id take it a step further and say peer reviewed is NOT a perfect process.

And just because someone does not get there discovery peer reviewed does not disqualify there work. The mountain with its other artifacts are still there weather peer reviewed or not.

You see, when they discovered the site and documented it. Which has been awhile now. All levels of society can SERVE as its own peer review. This happens in the form of cretics. People who critique the work. And people who believe it but promote further combing through the evidence. All of that, IS IN ITS OWN RIGHT a peer reviewing going on. Just without having to submit fees to a peer review company.

What makes this "peer review" through a company some kind of perfect process for you? Why do you put that on a pedestal?

Peer review eliminates idiocy. That instantly makes it a far better source than "documentaries". And when they are working in a field where the only proper way to test the work is by peer review then avoiding it does disqualify one.

You bet i dont? You just love asserting to know everybody, dont you? Thats a major blunder of yours. If i wer you, id work on that. Change your approuch. Be more....humble. it work better in your favor.

Since you are a creationist the odds are HUGE that you have no clue as to what macroevolution is. Tell me, has macroevolution ever been directly observed?

Ok.....so if a documentary presented "reliable" sources about evolution then the documentary would be presenting evidence, right......?

A proper documentary would state where the workers published their findings so that others could check make sure that they were honestly reported. A proper article will link to those sources. The same rules apply to evolution as it does to your nonsense. Since evolution has been confirmed countless thousands if not millions of times then a documentary can be used as an educational tool. You are dealing with a claim that not only has not been confirmed in any way at all but has been refuted.

Ok, so how do they determine what is foolish and a mistake?

How many times does one have to explain that sloppy workmanship and avoiding peer review automatically refutes their work?

Whats that standard may i ask? (Notice with your post, im peer reviewing it)

You are far from being a peer. You can't review anything. Let's try not to make this personal. You have made several false claims about me. I have merely pointed out the fact that you do not know what macroevolution is.

And again, are artifacts and locations fake just because there not peer reviewed by this traditional process? Again, the word peer means to look keenly at or anylize. Thats what wer doing now with the subject. And we are reviewing it.

There were no artifacts. Ron found some relatively modern brass valve wheels and called them "chariot wheels". His "altar" was merely a rock formation from what I have seen.

Also even if he submitted his work for peer review along with the fees for it, how are those people gonna go over and comb through the dessert location? They need permits from the arabian government or just sneak in and check. But, they dont do it that way. And permits to do this isnt happening. The arabian government is not issuing it.

A lot of the knowledge is out there already, as I showed with the mountain top that Ron misidentified. Peer review also checks their work methods. If their claims are validated by their research. This is why documentaries are worthless they cannot show the work methods. Real work is rather dull and boring stuff since they have to go over every important step and a lot of what would seem to some to be unimportant.

I could post a video on evolution as an educational piece but it would not be evidence in of itself. To be valid it would have to be based upon proper evidence that one could check out for themselves. I can't see any of the claims that you have made that are confirmable in any way and most of them have been refuted already.

 

[Jollybear]

No, you have no clue as to what it is made of. Or at least you have not demonstrated any knowledge. Luckily I can Google search. Ron Wyatt not only did not find "Mt. Sinai" He misidentified the mountain that he found. He thought that he found Jabal al-Lawz - Wikipedia when in reality he found Jabal Maqla - Wikipedia . That mountains name means "Burnt Mountain" And it is not burnt. It is topped with a layer of dark colored rock. Nothing burnt about it:

Ahuh! , it means "burnt mountain"! So, burnt means burnt.

Also there was no misidentification.

Look at this article here Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia? See for yourself - WND

"A Wikipedia entry on Jabal al-Lawz contends investigators who believe it’s the location of Mt. Sinai such as Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke and Lennart Moller have misidentified a mountain called Jabal Maqla as Jabal al-Lawz.

Richard explains Jabal al-Lawz, which means “Mountain of Almonds,” is the name of the entire range.

In biblical times, the range was called Horeb.

Jabal Maqla, also rendered Jebel al-Makklah, is the specific mountain in question. It’s also known as “Jabal Musa,” the “Mountain of Moses.”

“This is a mountain with a dark-colored basalt rock on the top, as well as a cave on its front"

The summit of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This is the same granite that comprises Jabal al-Lawz.[4] Jabal Maqla is about 7 kilometers to the south, and a few hundred meters lower."

There ya go, proof it WAS BURNT.

"Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". The original rock (protolith) is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C) and pressure (100 megapascals (1,000 bar) or more), causing profound physical or chemical change."

See that? It WAS BURNT.

The evidence is getting deep now. This is better then i thought. You just HELPED my case! You did the work for me. Wonderful!

Yes I did. Many times. Let me explain it to you one more time: They did not put their work through the process of peer review. That means that their work is worthless. They were either liars or idiots, you can choose which one. This should not be so hard to figure out.

Ok, if you watched it, then tell me WHY there liers or idiots then. Do so by refuting the actual finds.

Because they made idiotic and ignorant claims about it that a minimal amount of research would have turned up.

And thats false, because the article i quoted above to you shows a guy who believes in the location and he knows what kind of rock it is. He says it in the article i quoted you. So, dont be so quick to judge people. If people put work and money into going over there and documenting this stuff, do you think there really not gonna know what kind of rock it is? Your judgements are unrational.

And as a naturalist, rationality is suppose to be your main piller.

It took me less than five minutes. But I probably know more what to look for than you do.

Oh trust me, i would have found it without you, but hey, you found it and made it easy for me.

Are you misspelling the word "pillow" I have heard some people pronounce it that way. Spell checkers, like Google, are your friends

No, i was referring to a piller. The bible called it a piller of fire. So, i did spell it right.

But, hey, a pillow of fire sounds cute and catchy. That works too.

Peer review eliminates idiocy. That instantly makes it a far better source than "documentaries". And when they are working in a field where the only proper way to test the work is by peer review then avoiding it does disqualify one.

You didnt answer my point or answer my question. Let me say it again.

"just because someone does not get there discovery peer reviewed does not disqualify there work. The mountain with its other artifacts are still there weather peer reviewed or not.

You see, when they discovered the site and documented it, which has been awhile now, all levels of society can SERVE as its own peer review. This happens in the form of cretics. People who critique the work. And people who believe it but promote further combing through the evidence. All of that, IS IN ITS OWN RIGHT a peer reviewing going on. Just without having to submit fees to a peer review company.

What makes this "peer review" through a company some kind of perfect process for you? Why do you put that on a pedestal?"

Since you are a creationist the odds are HUGE that you have no clue as to what macroevolution is. Tell me, has macroevolution ever been directly observed?

What do you mean by creationist? Before you assume what i am, first tell me what you mean by that term.

And i was only using a documentary on evolution to illustrate a point, it was never intended to turn it into a discussion on evolution. Wer already discussing the exodus. Thats enough info to deal with dont you think?

But, if your curious, no, we have not directly observed macro evolution. Weve directly observed micro. Oh boy, please dont tell me wer gonna be debating the exodus and evolution at the same time. Its TOO MUCH.

A proper documentary would state where the workers published their findings so that others could check make sure that they were honestly reported. A proper article will link to those sources. The same rules apply to evolution as it does to your nonsense. Since evolution has been confirmed countless thousands if not millions of times then a documentary can be used as an educational tool. You are dealing with a claim that not only has not been confirmed in any way at all but has been refuted.

The discovery of mount sinai in arabia HAS been documented WHERE they found it so others can go check. And some others DID GO CHECK.

I disagree that a documentary can only be educational. It can and often does presents there best evidences, whether it be ones you agree with or ones i do. And a peer review article seeks to educate. So, your just playing samantics at this point.

How many times does one have to explain that sloppy workmanship and avoiding peer review automatically refutes their work?

You did not answer my question. Let me ask it again

"Ok, so how do they (the peer reviewers) determine what is foolish and a mistake?

Also, doing work and discovering something and not submitting it to this traditional peer review process does not disqualify or refute it as being real.

You put this peer review too high on a pedestal and it dont belong there because its imperfect in its own right.

You are far from being a peer. You can't review anything. Let's try not to make this personal. You have made several false claims about me. I have merely pointed out the fact that you do not know what macroevolution is.

Another question you did not answer. Man, its not looking good for you. When someone avoids answering specific questions that speaks volumes to me how weak there case is.

Heres the question again

"Whats that standard (of peer review) may i ask? (Notice with your post, im peer reviewing it)

And i had not even told you what macro evolution is and your already telling me i dont know what it is. Thats incredable.

There were no artifacts.

False. Artifacts and locations and carvings found.

Ron found some relatively modern brass valve wheels and called them "chariot wheels".

Where did you get modern from?

His "altar" was merely a rock formation from what I have seen.

What about the pillers and the organized alter? And the carvings of bulls on the other alter i think you mean as a rock formation?

A lot of the knowledge is out there already, as I showed with the mountain top that Ron misidentified. Peer review also checks their work methods. If their claims are validated by their research. This is why documentaries are worthless they cannot show the work methods. Real work is rather dull and boring stuff since they have to go over every important step and a lot of what would seem to some to be unimportant.

What, and a documentary cant tell people how they got there evidence? Sure they can, and they do. Ive watched many a documentaries, they sure do. They go through all that.

I could post a video on evolution as an educational piece but it would not be evidence in of itself. To be valid it would have to be based upon proper evidence that one could check out for themselves. I can't see any of the claims that you have made that are confirmable in any way and most of them have been refuted already.

So a peer reviewed article can present evidence of evolution, but a documentary cannot present the same evidence?

Ok......then.......

 

[Prometheus85]

Yeah, but lots of people come back from clinical death.

But people were easy to impress back then. It was a miracle to cure leprosy. Now we just give you some antibiotics and you're on your way. No muss, no fuss.

I’m sorry but what does clinical death have to do with Resurrection? People come back form clinical death because it’s treated as an emergency and that person is put on life support. This effort continues until either the heart is restarted, or a physician determines that continued efforts are useless and recovery is impossible. Jesus death was a series of events not a single one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahuh! , it means "burnt mountain"! So, burnt means burnt.

Also there was no misidentification.

Look at this article here Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia? See for yourself - WND

"A Wikipedia entry on Jabal al-Lawz contends investigators who believe it’s the location of Mt. Sinai such as Ron Wyatt, Bob Cornuke and Lennart Moller have misidentified a mountain called Jabal Maqla as Jabal al-Lawz.

Richard explains Jabal al-Lawz, which means “Mountain of Almonds,” is the name of the entire range.

In biblical times, the range was called Horeb.

Jabal Maqla, also rendered Jebel al-Makklah, is the specific mountain in question. It’s also known as “Jabal Musa,” the “Mountain of Moses.”

“This is a mountain with a dark-colored basalt rock on the top, as well as a cave on its front"



There ya go, proof it WAS BURNT.

"Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". The original rock (protolith) is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C) and pressure (100 megapascals (1,000 bar) or more), causing profound physical or chemical change."

See that? It WAS BURNT.

The evidence is getting deep now. This is better then i thought. You just HELPED my case! You did the work for me. Wonderful!

You can't be serious. I demonstrated that it was not burnt. It is a naturally dark stratum on top of the mountain. And strata does not refer only to sedimentary rock.

Ok, if you watched it, then tell me WHY there liers or idiots then. Do so by refuting the actual finds.

I have done so several times. It is not my fault that you cannot understand a simple explanation.

And thats false, because the article i quoted above to you shows a guy who believes in the location and he knows what kind of rock it is. He says it in the article i quoted you. So, dont be so quick to judge people. If people put work and money into going over there and documenting this stuff, do you think there really not gonna know what kind of rock it is? Your judgements are unrational.

Your article has zero credibility. You can't "prove" anything that does not rely on proper sources. Learn how to check your sources.

And as a naturalist, rationality is suppose to be your main piller.

No, I sleep on regular pillows.

Oh trust me, i would have found it without you, but hey, you found it and made it easy for me.

And it refuted your claims. That you did not understand it is just sad.

No, i was referring to a piller. The bible called it a piller of fire. So, i did spell it right.

But, hey, a pillow of fire sounds cute and catchy. That works too.

No, they don't. Seriously. Spell check is your friend.

You didnt answer my point or answer my question. Let me say it again.

"just because someone does not get there discovery peer reviewed does not disqualify there work. The mountain with its other artifacts are still there weather peer reviewed or not.

So what if the mountain is there? They got their facts wrong even though they are easily understood. This is an example of why sources that do not rely on peer review are almost always garbage. This is a garbage source that you have been using.

You see, when they discovered the site and documented it, which has been awhile now, all levels of society can SERVE as its own peer review. This happens in the form of cretics. People who critique the work. And people who believe it but promote further combing through the evidence. All of that, IS IN ITS OWN RIGHT a peer reviewing going on. Just without having to submit fees to a peer review company.

What makes this "peer review" through a company some kind of perfect process for you? Why do you put that on a pedestal?"

Please, I am just shaking my head in disbelief.

What do you mean by creationist? Before you assume what i am, first tell me what you mean by that term.

And i was only using a documentary on evolution to illustrate a point, it was never intended to turn it into a discussion on evolution. Wer already discussing the exodus. Thats enough info to deal with dont you think?

But, if your curious, no, we have not directly observed macro evolution. Weve directly observed micro. Oh boy, please dont tell me wer gonna be debating the exodus and evolution at the same time. Its TOO MUCH.



The discovery of mount sinai in arabia HAS been documented WHERE they found it so others can go check. And some others DID GO CHECK.

I disagree that a documentary can only be educational. It can and often does presents there best evidences, whether it be ones you agree with or ones i do. And a peer review article seeks to educate. So, your just playing samantics at this point.



You did not answer my question. Let me ask it again

"Ok, so how do they (the peer reviewers) determine what is foolish and a mistake?

Also, doing work and discovering something and not submitting it to this traditional peer review process does not disqualify or refute it as being real.

You put this peer review too high on a pedestal and it dont belong there because its imperfect in its own right.



Another question you did not answer. Man, its not looking good for you. When someone avoids answering specific questions that speaks volumes to me how weak there case is.

Heres the question again

"Whats that standard (of peer review) may i ask? (Notice with your post, im peer reviewing it)

And i had not even told you what macro evolution is and your already telling me i dont know what it is. Thats incredable.



False. Artifacts and locations and carvings found.



Where did you get modern from?



What about the pillers and the organized alter? And the carvings of bulls on the other alter i think you mean as a rock formation?



What, and a documentary cant tell people how they got there evidence? Sure they can, and they do. Ive watched many a documentaries, they sure do. They go through all that.



So a peer reviewed article can present evidence of evolution, but a documentary cannot present the same evidence?

Ok......then.......

You appear to be having trouble reasoning logically. You need to cut down on the number of claims that you make because at this point all I really need to do is say "wrong" to every post that you make. So one point at a time or you will only get a series of "Wrong"s.

 

[joelr]

So, do you agree that Jesus was a real man then or do you believe hes a mythical fan fiction charector in a story? Which one is it?

I acknowledge that the current opinion of the field is that Jesus was not a deity but was a real man.
To go against scholarship one needs good evidence. To that end Richard Carriers research has proven his thesis - that the odds are 3 to 1 favoring myth.
Carrier has made his point and also explained all of the assumptions that sat unchallenged in the field concerning historicity.
So he made the case to why would scholars consider Jesus a real man and showed that the assumptions are based on flawed assumptions. Time will tell if his work is accepted as fact.

Well people back then worshiped diverse gods. Including isreal. Isreal is even mentioned to worship another god right at the mountain in the story.

so maybe another god burned the mountain. Or maybe it's a natural occurence.

But, i asked you about zues, because you mentioned zues. When i debate, i like being specific. And getting specific responses to specific questions.

What about Zeus?

Ha ha ha isnt a counter and what you quoted, i dont see the problem?

the problem is the actual location of the mountain mentioned in the bible is actually UNKNOWN.
Do you see that problem?

No, you misunderstand. You disagreeing with my views does not make you have a snarling additude. You having a snarling additude makes you have a snarling additude.

Totally subjective.

Ive debated people in my past WHO DISAGREE with me and yet did not have a snarling additude.

uh huh.

Ok, you wanna play that game with me. Fine. If you cannot come up with a real counter argument for this chared mountain, then you basically concede its real evidence. And we know where its generally at from historical records. But from archeology, we know exactly where its at because its found and everything matches up. You wanna preach, ok, ill preach back.

We know "where its generally at" a ha HA HA HA

"Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia"
Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

The last ten years has witnessed the proliferation of books, videos, websites and television programs that have proposed a new site for Mt. Sinai - Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. They also told about underwater searches for Pharaoh’s chariots and weapons from the Egyptian army. This paper examines three aspects of the identification of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia. First, the paper questions the credibility of the claims. Second, the paper disputes the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz. Third, the paper examines the archaeological evidence.

I believe that this paper, along with the Bible and Spade article, will conclusively demonstrated that there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence to support the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

I dont enjoy debating like this. This isnt REAL debating. You don't know how to properly debate. Im sorry, you dont.

What, you mean where you bring up a topic and I show scholarship and facts that show it to be likely wrong? That style? Cuz that's all that has happened.

For a place to be the real location, all the things have to match. And they all match with the arabia location. I go where the evidence lands.

That's a lie. Actually 2 lies. They don't match and you most certainly DO NOT go with any evidence if it counters your religious beliefs. I see this every new post.
For example you will ignore all the following evidence because it doesn't support your outlandish theory about a god-mountain:

Mount Sinai is NOT Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia

As popular as this idea may be in certain evangelical (and even Jewish) circles, there is no credible historical, geographical, archaeological or Biblical evidence for the thesis that Mt. Sinai is at Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia.

There are several unsubstantiated claims that the proponents of this site need to substantiate or abandon. First, the Sinai Peninsula was not part of Egypt proper, but “out of Egypt.” Second, Biblically, Mt. Sinai is not in the Land of Midian, yet Jebel al-Lawz is in Midian territory (northwest Saudi Arabia). Third, the Sinai Peninsula was part of “Arabia” in the First Century AD. Paul would be perfectly correct in stating Mt. Sinai is in Arabia if Mt. Sinai was at Jebel Sin Bishar.

The proponents also need to face up to the archaeological evidence at their site. The petroglyphs of bovine existed long before Moses ever lived. The so-called “Cave of Moses” at el-Bad’ were not hewn until long after Moses lived. The so-called “altar of Moses and the 12 columns” dates to the Nabatean period and has nothing to do with the Wilderness Wanderings.

You will not find out the author is a credible biblical scholar (Gordon Franz MA in Biblical Studies from Columbia Biblical Seminary) or fact check any of the dozens of counter facts.

There wrong IF there wrong. And there not right just because they have a PHD. PHD is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. And what i gave you IS RAW evidence.

Maybe. But you haven't even came close to showing any evidence from a Ph.D to be wrong?
The "raw" evidence you gave is completely debunked?

So every archeologist agrees with you? Every single one of them? Reminds me of your additude of thinking every single ancient at first was a sun worshiper.

I'm talking about consensus. The opinion of the vast majority of any field is the opinion.
There could easily be some guy who got a Ph.D and get brainwashed into any cult and have then try to make the science fit the weird ideas.
Most cosmologists believe in an expanding universe. There might be 1 or 2 who believe in the steady state model still. Who cares?
And yes, the first thing probably worshipped was the sun.

In an earlier post I already quoted the Q'ran in which Abraham explains he wasn't happy with all the sun gods and wanted a "full-time god", one who didn't go out at night.
And guess what.......he had a revelation and here comes Yaweh. Yay!

But this shows that solar deities were super common. Did you forget that? Or are you ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your worldview that ancient people worshipped the same god?
Unfortunately our oldest records of human worship are solar/moon worship and animal worship. Look it up.

 

[joelr]

You can twist things all you want, but what i want is for you to explain that black top on the mountain.

Who knows? Look a black mountain - it must be god!!
Dumbest thing ever? God in the gap much?
Was it a volcano, did a small space rock shatter in the atmosphere and land there (this happened in Russia a few years back).
A mineral ? -Augite is the usual black or brownish-black pyroxene mineral of the dark igneous rocks and some high-grade metamorphic rocks.

Study Black Rock High Rock country in Nevada there are several reasons for black rock.

This mountain is evidence for ...........a bunch of black rock. That's it!
It doesn't match the biblical site and there are actual non-supernatural reasons for black rock.
This is the most speculative thing EVER. I'd be embarrassed to raise this as proof of a myth?

Is there a black top mountain over there? Is that not a fact that needs explanation?

your "god in the gap" explanation is the worst argument you've made in this entire discussion. Do you know what "god in the gap" is?

Get real man.

no you really don't. Your calling all this stuff "red herring" but you brought up all of the topics?

Get real. This is loged in my mind along with your red herrings and your past contradiction i pointed out too.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "logged in my mind" I don't know what that is supposed to suggest?
Any contradictions have been fully explained, I'm sure. If not spell it out and I'll set you straight.

How do you know ALL archeologists agree with you?

In scholarship there are works accepted as historical fact. They represent our best guess at history.
Thomas Thompsons book on the mythical nature of the OT has been reviewed in top journals and accepted in the field as accurate. So this is taught in Universities and such.
Same with the Jesus is a man theory.

There may be a few fundamentalist who work in the field who disagree? I don't know?
But generally once a work is accepted it's considered the current opinion of that field.

Religious people can sit around all day and talk about how real this religion or god is but academia does not care. It moves forward and eventually some new generation will accept the knowledge.

Sometimes an entire generation or 2 of people who won't give up an idea that science has dis-proven will just ignore science. But eventually fresh minds get the information from an early age and eventually everyone agrees.
In the science of warfare the Samari did not accept modern weapons as useful for over a century. But in the early 1900s they went against modern weapons and that was that.
Japan quickly up-dated their military science.

If the "wrong" time makes all the evidence match the bible allot, how do you know they got things at the "right" time?

I don't think changing any times makes any difference. Did you read some conspiracy theory website that told you if archeological times were different then it would be better?
Sounds like a total conspiracy? Like I'm supposed to just believe archeologists can't date things properly? What your saying is so vague and ambiguous that I really can't comment?

Question everything. Your living in the matrix.

No, no, that's Disingenuous .
You mean question everything that doesn't agree with Christianity being real.
So it's bias and bad science right from the start.
It's not a search for truth it's a search to make a religion true.

You would have to research the methods of archeologist and have a credible counter claim to the dating practices. Which is different for different things.
Writings are dated because they will reference events or show lack of knowledge of events as one method. Writing styles, language, location. It's a science.

Good luck with that.

The date does matter and not everyrhing is a myth. But, good going on the preaching again.

Well for sure Judaism and Christianity are myths. The OT is proven myth and the NT follows mythotypes of all sorts including the main character scoring 18 on the Rank-Raglin scale.

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=247B2NRXBMJWGV0G2CZY

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham


Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review


Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted.

OT is myth

Jesus, romulus and whoever else needs to be dealt seperately and on there own accord.

Jesus has been debunked. I don't think we need to debunk Romulus.

Thats a twist, a false accusation and just wrong.

Not wrong. You have purposely ignored mountains of information switching to new topics every time facts work against you.
The only thing you even got to was a fact that Innanna wasn't crucified but that didn't matter of course because the similarities are about dying and rising savior gods.
Crucifixion was a Jewish/Roman era thing so of course their version would include that.
Also calling into question the scientific dating done by a field is very suspicious. Facts start going against you so now it's not the facts it's the ENTIRE FIELD OF ARCHEOLOGY? So I'm not wrong.