>The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided.
And the rules of defense are simple; you control the angle of the target and the distance from it. I have willingly provided you a target. You have provided nothing, and have nothing at risk.
>I had kind of hoped that YOU would "shoot at the target [I had]provided." Oh, well, since you have
decided to set the "rules of engagement," here goes:
Sorry, but you didn't provide a worthy target, let alone one of interest.
>I propose that we discard ALL of the "...myth, mysticism and tradition, plus cultural and
religious self-interest..." and look to the ONLY legitimate authority, at least for those of us who
believe the Bible.
My Profile clearly states:
This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.
If you insist on modifying the premises behind my site and excluding Archeological evidence of HISTORIC historic events, then this discussion of HISTORY is unfortunately over. I do believe the Bible, but do not agree it is the SOLE reference for ALL HISTORIC truth, and will not agree to that restriction on our discussion.
Please advise before I spend any more time responding to the balance of your questions.
-LT
>The rules of engagement are simple; you shoot at the target provided.
then
Now, tell me what part of that history you have a problem with. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC!
Now:
And the rules of defense are simple; you control the angle of the target and the distance from it. I have willingly provided you a target. You have provided nothing, and have nothing at risk.
Well, now... It seems to me that, every time I post an explicit question (or a dozen) expressing my opinion that your theory is not Biblically sound, that, rather than making any defense, you make a new "rule."
Sorry, but you didn't provide a worthy target, let alone one of interest.
Are you saying that the Bible--the ONLY direct, reliable, objective STANDARD for truth about theology, is not a "worthy target?" Is it not "of interest," to you, or your theory?
This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.
If your theory is ONLY supported by SECULAR history and archeology, I feel that it would be more honest to present it that way, rather than making inaccurate allusions to the Biblical record.
If you insist on modifying the premises behind my site and excluding Archeological evidence of HISTORIC historic events, then this discussion of HISTORY is unfortunately over.
Your premise SEEMS to be that your theory is proved by BOTH the Biblical record, and the secular historical record. Secular history is rife with inaccuracy, lies, and rank speculation disguised as facts.
I say, that when secular history and the Biblical record disagree, that I will choose the Bible. I think that a theory such as yours, with so much potential for disaster, should meet the test of Biblical congruence, and only then, should we look at secular history.
It seems to me that you hold that secular history trumps the Bible. I am hoping that this is not so. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
DG