The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by queeq
Oh good, I thought people were generalïsing again. Good thing we have you on board to bring some nuance into the debate. Labels really help in dividing the world in good and evil for ya, Poe, for it's really really really hard to think for yourself and judge things not only by its cover. So it's good to make up a cover if there is none.

You are not a Biblical Maximalist?

Originally posted by queeq
. . . These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

Originally posted by queeq
Well, I think the Bible contains history but it's told with a magnifying glass.

Shall I go on?

Originally posted by queeq
Well, I made a typo. If you read carefulyy you can see it says
"(5 50 minute documentaries)"... I meant to write "(5x 50 minute documentaries). So I get slaughtered for a missing x... Thanks, I deserved that.

Initially, you implied that you were the original director of two documentaries and that you adapted a single documentary into five, 50-minute documentaries.

Now, you are stating that you remade two documentaries, and that you adapted three documentaries into five new documentaries.

A single typographical error does not account for the complete change in your story.

Queeq, going by the selective quotes above, it appears as though you assume credibility of bible knowledge because there are passages that can be supported by history.

Does this mean you are really a Muslim?

Just open your box with labels and pick anyone you want. If judging is what you want to do without looking at arguments, then judge away. If you like judging... you know, you judgers would make fine red neck Christians.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are not a Biblical Maximalist?

No. Obviously you don't know the defininition of a Bible maximalist. They hate people who propose a revision in chronology. Shows how far your knowledge extends... not far.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Initially, you implied that you were the original director of two documentaries and that you adapted a single documentary into five, 50-minute documentaries.

Now, you are stating that you remade two documentaries, and that you adapted three documentaries into five new documentaries.

A single typographical error does not account for the complete change in your story.

Again: you don't know what youre talking about and you don't pay attention. RBFY. There never was a SINGLE doc of P&K, Spanish Inquisition Biggles, not until I made one. Whatever I supposedly "implied" is all happening in your brain. I leave it to you to see how fit that is.

(1) I said I made a REMAKE of Pharaohs and Kings (which were three docs originally, I never said there were less.). (2)I made five new documentaries, (3) among others out of the material of those three, (4) demonstrating that I did know a little about the matter. I was never out to make an all complete scientific review with footnotes out of it. I didn't know it was required.

Count to four and maybe you're gtting some of this instead of playing the dumb antagonist game some others are doing.

Originally posted by queeq
I thought you claimed to have seen the documentary?? You don't show it. People can see correlations with other fields, other cultures WITHOUT LONG-HELD IDEOLOGIES, you know!
Somehow you can't get this through your skull for some reason. Why do you feel so threatened that you need to label one's background first? And then base your judgment ON THAT LABEL and not on the arguments presented.

Look, if you say: "every one that has anything positive to say about the Bible or any religious book is a nutter - period", then say it and make it clear. You have made that point over and over and over and over again. Just admit that it is you who presents the "long-held ideology" that everything that even remotely smells like a religion is BS. And then just leave this forum if all you come to do here is the preach your gospel that everything in this forum is nonsense. Leave the 'nutters' be and go and sit out there with your anti-religious friends and gloat over the stupidity of some people who so unjustfully share your oxygen on this planet.

So, what was the jist of Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest?

What biblical event was Dr. Rohl attempting to validate with his theories?

Originally posted by queeq
No. Obviously you don't know the defininition of a Bible maximalist. They hate people who propose a revision in chronology. Shows how far your knowledge extends... not far.

A Biblical Maximalist is one who holds that The Bible provides an accurate account of world history, as you have been doing for the past 12 pages of this thread.

Moreover, you do not seem to be sure whether you adapted "Pharaohs and Kings" into a single documentary, or five or more documentaries:

Originally posted by queeq
. . . There never was a SINGLE doc of P&K . . . not until I made one.

Originally posted by queeq
. . . I said I made a REMAKE of Pharaohs and Kings (which were three docs originally, I never said there were less.) . . . I made five new documentaries . . . among others out of the material of those three . . .

Originally posted by queeq
I thought you claimed to have seen the documentary??

And I thought you claimed to have directed it.

Originally posted by queeq
But you are trying to find some secret agenda you believe must be there for some reason. What is your problem? But did those Catholic teachers do to you? Were the male priests a little too kind for ya?

But did those Catholic school teachers do what? We had no priest's that served as school teachers, neither did we have any religion teachers that were Nuns. All of my religion teachers were Catholics, but none of them were "married to god".

All priests are male in the catholic church; a factoid that I'm sure doesn't escape your expert insight.

As for secret agendas, I imply no agenda where there isn't one that is blatantly obvious. I can only assume this is why Rohl titled his book "A Biblical Quest". But, I'm sure you realize this, having directed it and all.

Originally posted by Devil King
I haven't weakened in any resolve. I just want to know how you think you've gotten so good at spotting the truth when you see it posted on a message board, and how it varies from spotting bullshit.

I never said you "weakened in any resolve".

Why do I get so much crap for missing things and other people don't? I admit when I am wrong and tell people that I make mistakes...why do I get so much crap when I make mistakes and people like you don't? 🙁

Originally posted by Devil King
I've already pointed out that 2 of the 3 documentaries were directed by different guys, and I'm waiting on confirmation of the third. So, if it's so easy for you, then I simply asked how you're so good at it.

I never claimed to be "good at it". Why are you putting words into my mouth? Again, why do I get so much crap for mistakes like that?

Originally posted by Devil King
The whole basis for this entire situation is that he is a creationist, who thinks that because some events in the bible are supported by archaeology, that it's all true and there's an all powerful santa god. This is not up for dispute, despite how he wants to claim that the thread has always been about history alone. The documentaries for which he has taken credit are all presented from this perspective. I will admit that it is odd that those three particular documentaries are the one's he's chosen, but as I've already said, 2 of the 3 were directed by 2 different guys. If 2 of the 3 have been directed by different guys, then it stands to reason that all 3 were not directed by the same guy. Since the last one is up for debate, I've taken steps to find out who directed it. He then decided to say that he directed the European versions or updates of one of the documentaries, despite the reality that a documentary doesn't get a new director or a new version for a European language release.

This "creationist" idea that you have come up with has already been addressed...but why the hell are you making up stuff about people and treating it as though it were truth? It doesn't make in anymore true if you pretend it was right.

Queeq, that implication you made in your comment about his schooling was very low. I know he is personally attacking you constantly about your credibility; but, dude, that was going too low. Devil King isn't all that bad and in fact, is a great guy, irl. (There's another one of those "implication" things on the "truth", DK.)

II

Originally posted by dadudemon
This "creationist" idea that you have come up with has already been addressed...but why the hell are you making up stuff

I haven't made up anything. In fact, "making up stuff" is the entire point of the dispute. We simply have different ideas as to who is making up "stuff".

I can appreciate that your perspective is based entirely on seeing another believer in biblical reality having the "facts" behind him, and addressing the situation accordingly.

If I believed in Santa Claus, I would likely come to the defense of someone that held similar beliefs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Queeq, that implication you made in your comment about his schooling was very low. I know he is personally attacking you constantly about your credibility; but, dude, that was going too low. Devil King isn't all that bad and in fact, is a great guy, irl. (There's another one of those "implication" things on the "truth", DK.)

He made no implication about my schooling. He simply illustrated that he is willing to condemn catholics for believing in the same batshit, unfounded, man-made crap that his particular ideology happens to support. What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by Devil King
I haven't made up anything. In fact, "making up stuff" is the entire point of the dispute. We simply have different ideas as to who is making up "stuff".

Obviously you don't think you made anything up because that is not how you "like to do things".

I pointed out three things that were no truths in your post: two of them were just you not understanding my post. (No biggie, unlike other's, I will not go "ZOMG!!11!! yur teh stupidzz!!)

Originally posted by Devil King
I can appreciate that your perspective is based entirely on seeing another believer in biblical reality having the "facts" behind him, and addressing the situation accordingly.

If I believed in Santa Claus, I would likely come to the defense of someone that held similar beliefs.

Actually, I am pretty damned* close to being an atheist but I can't help but believe in God.

I look at the old testament in much the same way you do. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I view the Old Testament to be allegories, metaphors, and grossly altered "real" events. Some of it should be interpreted as literal, and some of it should be interpreted as symbolic. There is some archaeological truths to be had from the text and sometimes they can actually lead to interesting findings.

We start to differ when it actually comes down to Gods involvement in the books and how they are to be interpreted in relation to the presence of God. (I tried to avoid ambiguous pronoun reference there and I know you know what I mean...but I apologize if it was confusing.)

*that is a pun...I hope you get it.

Originally posted by Devil King
He made no implication about my schooling. He simply illustrated that he is willing to condemn catholics for believing in the same batshit, unfounded, man-made crap that his particular ideology happens to support. What [b]would Jesus do? [/B]

Dude, homey, bro...I think you missed the point he was trying to make. He was implying that you being sexually molested or raped by the male catholic priests.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously you don't think you made anything up because that is not how you "like to do things".

why the "quotes"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I pointed out three things that were no truths in your post: two of them were just you not understanding my post. (No biggie, unlike other's, I will not go "ZOMG!!11!! yur teh stupidzz!!)

Yeah, you pointed out 3 things. None of which were relevant, much less real, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I am pretty damned* close to being an atheist but I can't help but believe in God.

Since you have stated you're a Mormon, I do not find it suprising that you do not subscribe to biblical guidelines or rhetoric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I look at the old testament in much the same way you do. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I don't know, how do you think I see the old testament?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I view the Old Testament to be allegories, metaphors, and grossly altered "real" events. Some of it should be interpreted as literal, and some of it should be interpreted as symbolic. There is some archaeological truths to be had from the text and sometimes they can actually lead to interesting findings.

None of it should be interpreted as literal.

not "truths", evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We start to differ when it actually comes down to Gods involvement in the books and how they are to be interpreted in relation to the presence of God. (I tried to avoid ambiguous pronoun reference there and I know you know what I mean...but I apologize if it was confusing.)

The matter in question involves god siding against his chosen people. Should we consider hindsight 20/20 when practiced by an all-knowing and omnicient god?

Originally posted by dadudemon
*that is a pun...I hope you get it.

*it certainly isn't when you point it out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, homey, bro...I think you missed the point he was trying to make. He was implying that you being sexually molested or raped by the male catholic priests.

yeah, i understood his intentions. it's just too bad that they were meant to reflect some measure of angst for the people involved, rather than the message they preached.

Originally posted by Devil King
why the "quotes"?

I try to avoid colloquial sayings as they are supposedly poor writing techniques and are frowned upon. To be honest, I do it so the intended readers will realize that I was being lazy. This realization of being lazy means that they know that I acknowledge that this is not proper and will not be so quick to label me as ignorant with my words. Judging my post, even subconsciously, of lower quality will detract from the thought that is given to my posts when I am serious: hence the quotes. If I elicit an inappropriate interpretation of my words because they were judged more simple than intended, than I have failed and it wastes time in subsequent discussions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, you pointed out 3 things. None of which were relevant, much less real, though.

Sure. 😉 I could carry this specific point out a lot further but I won't because it is a waste of both our times. We both know what Queeq, you, and I posted.

Originally posted by Devil King
Since you have stated you're a Mormon, I do not find it suprising that you do not subscribe to biblical guidelines or rhetoric.

I was hoping you would come to that realization. 😄 However, there are some things in the bible that "we" still believe as legit guidelines.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't know, how do you think I see the old testament?

I thought I made the clear?

Originally posted by Devil King
None of it should be interpreted as literal.

You and I both know that that is not a academic truth. I know you know that I know that so why would you try to pass that off?

Originally posted by Devil King
not "truths", evidence.

I used the word "truths" for a reason and you seem to have picked up why rather swiftly. 🙂

Originally posted by Devil King
The matter in question involves god siding [b]against his chosen people. Should we consider hindsight 20/20 when practiced by an all-knowing and omnicient god?[/B]

I don't follow your logic. You will have to cite specific examples. I may agree with you if I can understand what you mean.

Originally posted by Devil King
*it certainly isn't when you point it out.

That's true but I have learned a lot of things I say are lost to ears that sandwich linear minds. (I am not saying that I am super whitty or anything...but rather, people seem to not look for those things.)

Question: Would you have noticed the intended pun if I hadn't have pointed it out?

Originally posted by Devil King
yeah, i understood his intentions. it's just too bad that they were meant to reflect some measure of angst for the people involved, rather than the message they preached.

Well, it appears you were totally unaffected by his low-brow insult and are even making jokes about it. Also, did you notice the "II" in my post? Yup, it took two of your replies to end up with what I thought would be your perspective on what he actually said. I came to this conclusion based on previous "actions" you have taken in conversation with me. I assumed that at first, you wouldn't "directly" get to the point of his intentions. I weighed out this possibility because of two supposed variables in your posting habits:

1. Sometimes, you slightly overlook the intentions of a post. (Don't we all?)

2. I assumed that you my actually have an insecurity about this education because of your disdain for religion and, therefore, try to avoid the delima of association with the Catholic church partially due to the "current" epidemic of sexual accusations against this Church.

I <-----------------😄

This board is extremely full of cynics...sadly, I am included.

If this post has mistakes in it, that is because I didn't try to proofread it...I usually do that before I click "submit".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I try to avoid colloquial sayings as they are supposedly poor writing techniques and are frowned upon. To be honest, I do it so the intended readers will realize that I was being lazy. This realization of being lazy means that they know that I acknowledge that this is not proper and will not be so quick to label me as ignorant with my words. Judging my post, even subconsciously, of lower quality will detract from the thought that is given to my posts when I am serious: hence the quotes. If I elicit an inappropriate interpretation of my words because they were judged more simple than intended, than I have failed and it wastes time in subsequent discussions.

Sure. 😉 I could carry this specific point out a lot further but I won't because it is a waste of both our times. We both know what Queeq, you, and I posted.

I was hoping you would come to that realization. 😄 However, there are some things in the bible that "we" still believe as legit guidelines.

I thought I made the clear?

You and I both know that that is not a academic truth. I know you know that I know that so why would you try to pass that off?

I used the word "truths" for a reason and you seem to have picked up why rather swiftly. 🙂

I don't follow your logic. You will have to cite specific examples. I may agree with you if I can understand what you mean.

That's true but I have learned a lot of things I say are lost to ears that sandwich linear minds. (I am not saying that I am super whitty or anything...but rather, people seem to not look for those things.)

Question: Would you have noticed the intended pun if I hadn't have pointed it out?

Well, it appears you were totally unaffected by his low-brow insult and are even making jokes about it. Also, did you notice the "II" in my post? Yup, it took two of your replies to end up with what I thought would be your perspective on what he actually said. I came to this conclusion based on previous "actions" you have taken in conversation with me. I assumed that at first, you wouldn't "directly" get to the point of his intentions. I weighed out this possibility because of two supposed variables in your posting habits:

1. Sometimes, you slightly overlook the intentions of a post. (Don't we all?)

2. I assumed that you my actually have an insecurity about this education because of your disdain for religion and, therefore, try to avoid the delima of association with the Catholic church partially due to the "current" epidemic of sexual accusations against this Church.

I <-----------------😄

This board is extremely full of cynics...sadly, I am included.

If this post has mistakes in it, that is because I didn't try to proofread it...I usually do that before I click "submit".

That's all a lovely distraction from the real point of what this thread has become, but it doesn't change the reality that Queeq is a believer in biblical validaty, which is the point of his perspective.

There are no "academic" truths when it comes to the bible, especially when it comes to archaeological evidence. Unbiased archaeology supports that.

i didnt "come" to any realization;i've always assumed that your religion is based on a congame that people are far too often willing to believe, much like christianity itself.

it's all fun to say that others are deficient when it comes to your subscription to biblical (or pyramid scheme) truths, but the sad fact is that the mythology surrounding your religion is man-made delusion. but, assuming that others are delusional ignores your own delusion, which is the basis for most modern religions. (yours being more modern than most)

you don't follow my logic becaue you have spent the last 10 pages arguing the validity of a liars perspective, based solely on his subscription to biblical truths. If you knew what you were defending, you wouldn't defend it. (especially since you are a mormon, who feels its your right to aply editied logic to the bible. But, hey, Queeq is willing to accept any help he can find.) But, that might be assuming too much, since you've been raised to believe Jesus made a pit stop in the Americas on his way to hell.

I have no insecurities about reciving a better education than do most people in this country. Neither will you ever find a post I've made that codemns my education, other than it involving the catholic religion. What you will find is a pronounced lack of support for organized religion, but none for the atholic school system. (which you might be happy to know operates a number of public educational institutes, as well) I have always condemned the religious beliefs of those who educated me, not the education they provided.)

Wow, this thread is running in circels.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's all a lovely distraction from the real point of what this thread has become, but it doesn't change the reality that Queeq is a believer in biblical validaty, which is the point of his perspective.

I don't know if this was directed at my answer of quotes or just a general response to my post. If it is the former, you asked and I answered.

Originally posted by Devil King
There are no "academic" truths when it comes to the bible, especially when it comes to archaeological evidence. Unbiased archaeology supports that.

I now understand your perspective on this point. It now makes sense why you said what you said earlier. However, at this point, we will have to agree to disagree. It is very obvious that even "unbiased" archeology supports my perspective that there are tangible truths to be had from Old Testament texts. Do you understand that even this evidence does not substantiate the existence of the God I believe in? If you realize that, then that might change the angle at which you approach this subject.

Originally posted by Devil King
i didnt "come" to any realization;i've always assumed that your religion is based on a congame that people are far too often willing to believe, much like christianity itself.

I can completely understand your perspective on this and I have thought that same thing myself. However, this is not what I was getting at. I was hoping you would bring to the discussion your understanding on the Mormon perspective on the bible.

Originally posted by Devil King
it's all fun to say that others are deficient when it comes to your subscription to biblical (or pyramid scheme) truths, but the sad fact is that the mythology surrounding your religion is man-made delusion. but, assuming that others are delusional ignores your own delusion, which is the basis for most modern religions. (yours being more modern than most)

It really feels like you are preaching to the choir. I have thought these thoughts before. You may think that I am saying these things just prove that I am not a total idiot because I believe...but I have stated already in the religion forum that I would be atheist if I wasn't Mormon because I have a hard time accepting religion as a whole.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Devil King
you don't follow my logic becaue you have spent the last 10 pages arguing the validity of a liars perspective, based solely on his subscription to biblical truths. If you knew what you were defending, you wouldn't defend it. (especially since you are a mormon, who feels its your right to aply editied logic to the bible. But, hey, Queeq is willing to accept any help he can find.) But, that might be assuming too much, since you've been raised to believe Jesus made a pit stop in the Americas on his way to hell.

The first sentence is utterly wrong. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion when we just argued something different about the very same subject. We just got done arguing about my "skills" as a "truth judge". Again, I believe he is telling the truth because he speaks with great knowledge on the subject being discussed.

Also, we believe he made the "pit stop" when he said "other sheep have I..". Also, Queeq doesn't need my help; he seems to be doing just fine himself.

Originally posted by Devil King
I have no insecurities about reciving a better education than do most people in this country. Neither will you ever find a post I've made that codemns my education, other than it involving the catholic religion. What you will find is a pronounced lack of support for organized religion, but none for the atholic school system. (which you might be happy to know operates a number of public educational institutes, as well) I have always condemned the religious beliefs of those who educated me, not the education they provided.)

It sounds like you subscribe to the same educational mindset of Ron Paul. Unlike other posters, I am not going to tell you that "I could care less about all of that b.s." because that would be a lie. I rather enjoyed you sharing a bit of truth from your personal life.

To sum up my post....

Sometimes I loathe religion as a whole. I loathe religion when I see a Mormon leader scoff at a young lady who has had an illegitimate child. I scoff at religion when Muslim extremist try but horribly fail to justify a suicide attack that kills innocents. I scoff at religion when it is used as a tool to persecute others. (Gay bashing, tearing down another's religion, etc.) I think your interpretation of my perspective as it relates to legitimate biblical research is misplaced. I really do pursue studies of this information from a scientific, or rather, an atheist perspective because religion does nothing but pollute the interpretation of the data. The data itself can be biased because the gatherer of the data may have a religion bias. Our perspectives may not be exactly the same, but I don't think they are that far off from each other.

Queeq is who he say he is. Worst case scenario: he may have embellished himself a little bit but is generally telling the truth.

No, I didn't really assume that you were boasting or expecting special treatment because you had a wife. But more and more, that factoid in someone's life is treated like an applaus line. It's like someone saying they were in the military or served in Iraq, and the whole room has to clap or tear up over their "sacrific" or their service to the US. Then, on the other thand, they make such a huge deal over the "greatest generation", those who fought WW2, as the target towards which the entire nation should aim. But, that was a generation of people who served their nation and an idea, and returned home and asked nothing in the way of praise for their actions. Maybe a little off topic, but not an idea I didn't want to share. [/rant]

But, what I don't understand is how you see mormonism as the last straw of being a deist? How can that be the last possible obsticle?

As for Queeq, the moment he embellishes, that's certainly not the truth anymore, is it? Why does one need to embellish? I asked the question much earlier in the thread why god needs to embellish the bible? Especially when we can all agree that the bible didn't fall from the sky, as is, or had been written by the finger of god on a tablet on the top of a mountain.

Lap 16.

Originally posted by queeq
Lap 16.

If the conversation is suddenly so beneath you, then feel free to get out of it.

Not so much beneath me, just running in endless circles of dodging, assuming, putting words into people's mouths, not answering. Looks like you found a new victim.