Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *What evidence would we expect archaeology to find 3,500 years after nomadic tent dwellers pass through a shifting desert? What would be the geographic area we would expect to have been researched to make this argument from silence? The whole Sinai? Select samples?

*If we did find middens or garbage dumps, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the Israelites? To mark them as part of another group?
**


*What evidence would we expect archaeologists to find 3,500 years after a horde of fire breathing dragons when rampaging through the German countryside? What would be the geographic area we would expect to have been researched to make this argument from silence? The whole Rhineland? Select samples?

*If we did find burnt corpses, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the victims of the dragon hordes? To mark them as part of another group?


Please present evidence that no horde of fire breathing dragons went rampaging through the German countryside 3,500 years ago. I want evidence that it didn't happen, as I find the argument from silence too weak in this case.



Fuck PJ, maybe the reason we haven't found any Unicorns yet is because we've just been looking in all of the wrong forests! Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Quote:
We tested it to make sure it was blood. It is unique blood. I will quickly state this, I know that there are some doctors here, and nurses, and people who are familiar with blood. All of us have 46 chromosomes, unless we have Downs Syndrome. Christ had 24. Each parent supplies 23 chromosomes to a new infant--all right, Christ got 23 from His mother, He got one from His Father, and it was a Y, which made Him a male. He got it not from an earthly Father, or He would have had 46 like the rest of us.

So...Jesus had the same number of chromosomes as a grain of rice?
The search for the holy grain has come to an end!
Jokes aside, according to this man, God had imparted 1 Y-chromosome to Mary to sire Jesus. In other words, God is a giant sperm cell and Jesus shouldn't even be human, and if he is, then he is incredibly incomplete and should have possessed countless genetic disorders rendering him incapable of surviving. Ouch, right in the logic!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 12:52 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible states that camps were established and that while the pillar stayed still, they encamped. With your ignorance of the Bible you missed your cue to invalidate the Exodus by seeking archaeological evidence or lack of it from where they camped for MONTHS on end.

Conveniently enough there is absolutely no evidence. Didn't figure I needed to mention that...

(02-10-2013 12:52 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Censored Now I have to make the atheists' arguments FOR them. Censored

You know what they say; the best rebuttal to biblical literalists is other biblical literalists.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 02:16 PM)Draxironos Wrote:  
Quote:
We tested it to make sure it was blood. It is unique blood. I will quickly state this, I know that there are some doctors here, and nurses, and people who are familiar with blood. All of us have 46 chromosomes, unless we have Downs Syndrome. Christ had 24. Each parent supplies 23 chromosomes to a new infant--all right, Christ got 23 from His mother, He got one from His Father, and it was a Y, which made Him a male. He got it not from an earthly Father, or He would have had 46 like the rest of us.

So...Jesus had the same number of chromosomes as a grain of rice?
The search for the holy grain has come to an end!
Jokes aside, according to this man, God had imparted 1 Y-chromosome to Mary to sire Jesus. In other words, God is a giant sperm cell and Jesus shouldn't even be human, and if he is, then he is incredibly incomplete and should have possessed countless genetic disorders rendering him incapable of surviving. Ouch, right in the logic!

Or a snail .. see above.
It flies in the face of "fully human, fully divine".
No human, by definition, has ever had 24 chromosomes. Wyatt was supposed to be trained as a nurse anesthetist. Obviously a quack and a half, (or just a complete fraud).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Yes, back to the serious.

From you?

(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Try answering these:

Prediction: the questions are dishonest and have simple answers regardless, which you are well aware of but deny for sheer obstinacy.

(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *What evidence would we expect archaeology to find 3,500 years after nomadic tent dwellers pass through a shifting desert? What would be the geographic area we would expect to have been researched to make this argument from silence? The whole Sinai? Select samples?

If it had happened - which it didn't; the "argument from silence" is absolutely overwhelming at every step of the way, from the lack of evidence of the departure to the lack of evidence of the arrival, and the lack of evidence of every step along the way - then yes, there would be evidence. So let us focus only on the magical lack of artifacts resulting from the activity of hundreds of thousands (if not millions!) of people over the course of decades.

For there is no such evidence. None at all. And so you resort to the good old bankrupt "you can't absolutely prove it's not out there, therefore Bible" argument. God of the archaeological gaps, as it were.

Millions of people leave behind huge amounts of detritus. Following the text we may miraculously dispose of the matter of feeding them. Do we also miraculously dispose of the matter of supplying them? In everything from clay to iron to linen to incense to wood and ten thousand other necessities, such as are not naturally occurring in the Sinai? Do we also miraculously dispose of their waste? Of every sort from shit to corpses? Were the travelling Israelites the most obsessively ecologically-conscious people of all time, leaving behind absolutely no trace of their passage?

It's not as though they would have plunked down on top of a sand dune. Actual people who live in actual deserts tend to make permanent shelter in stable sites. Such as among rock formations. Where there's shelter from wind and you won't get buried in sand while you sleep. Any long-term habitation would be in such a location. Or are we miraculously waiving that requirement, too?

If you want to go full bore into absurd concomitant miracles (which, after all, you'd have to) then you have reached the incoherent point of arguing that absence of evidence is evidence. This is not what sane people do.

But hell, maybe it is just behind the next hill. I mean, we can't ever know for sure...

(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *If we did find middens or garbage dumps, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the Israelites? To mark them as part of another group?

There's not even anything to identify. But let us consider. Turns out the answer is just pretty much any cultural artifact whatsoever. Religious accoutrements. Clothing. Pottery. And literally anything they ever wrote down.

Y'know. The sorts of things archaeologist tend to make a habit of looking for?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
02-10-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 01:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 01:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Back to the pamphlets.
So much for your comedy career. Weeping

Yes, back to the serious. Try answering these:

**
I apologize but it's hard to accept your continued argument from silence as I don't believe your response touches on these questions in any way:

*What evidence would we expect archaeology to find 3,500 years after nomadic tent dwellers pass through a shifting desert? What would be the geographic area we would expect to have been researched to make this argument from silence? The whole Sinai? Select samples?

*If we did find middens or garbage dumps, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the Israelites? To mark them as part of another group?
**

[Image: route-of-the-exodus.jpg?w=655&h=573]


So archaeologists have combed the desert all along the journey that Moses supposedly took and came up with...... Nada. Nothin' Zero. Zip. However they did find ancient encampments of small bands of nomadic tribes pre-dating Moses. Why can they find a small group of nomads but not one million people who were in the desert for 40 years.

Because..... it's myth.

Use some logic

[Image: simple-logic-large.jpg]

But since logic isn't your forte I'll leave you to your happy delusions.

Shakespeare Insult 13 – Henry IV Part 1
“That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like dancefortwo's post
02-10-2013, 05:12 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
Quote:*If we did find middens or garbage dumps, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the Israelites? To mark them as part of another group?

The question is irrelevant.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war teams of young Israeli archaeologists flooded into the West Bank and Sinai seeking to find evidence for their so-called historical claim to the land. They were sorely disappointed. Amihai Mazar was one such excavator in Sinai. In this book, edited by Professor Amnon Ben Tor, he gives the results of not only his failure but other teams as well to find any trace of the "Israelites" in Sinai.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m1b1VgN...81&f=false

If you dare...and I doubt you will because you seem like the type who can't handle having your fantasies challenged...click where it says "Front Cover" on the right and then click on page 281 in the drop down menu. It will take you to Mazar's discussion of the "Conquest" which continues onto the next page.

They found nothing. Not so much as a single pottery sherd - which is what archaeologists would be looking for, btw. - from the time when you insist your story was set. Kadesh Barnea is the only suitable oasis in the immediate area and the Israelis found NOTHING. No broken pottery, no latrines, no bodies, no no trace of cooking fires, no animal remains, etc. Moreover, Aharoni looking for evidence of the "enemies" that the Israelites overcame found no "King of Arad" or Arad itself, for that matter.

These findings, along with Finkelstein's work in the West Bank were the beginnings of minimalism. The realization that there is little in the way of historical reliability in any of the OT. For this we owe them a significant debt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
02-10-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
(02-10-2013 05:12 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:*If we did find middens or garbage dumps, tools, etc. as evidence, what would we need to identify them as belonging to the Israelites? To mark them as part of another group?

The question is irrelevant.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war teams of young Israeli archaeologists flooded into the West Bank and Sinai seeking to find evidence for their so-called historical claim to the land. They were sorely disappointed. Amihai Mazar was one such excavator in Sinai. In this book, edited by Professor Amnon Ben Tor, he gives the results of not only his failure but other teams as well to find any trace of the "Israelites" in Sinai.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m1b1VgN...81&f=false

If you dare...and I doubt you will because you seem like the type who can't handle having your fantasies challenged...click where it says "Front Cover" on the right and then click on page 281 in the drop down menu. It will take you to Mazar's discussion of the "Conquest" which continues onto the next page.

They found nothing. Not so much as a single pottery sherd - which is what archaeologists would be looking for, btw. - from the time when you insist your story was set. Kadesh Barnea is the only suitable oasis in the immediate area and the Israelis found NOTHING. No broken pottery, no latrines, no bodies, no no trace of cooking fires, no animal remains, etc. Moreover, Aharoni looking for evidence of the "enemies" that the Israelites overcame found no "King of Arad" or Arad itself, for that matter.

These findings, along with Finkelstein's work in the West Bank were the beginnings of minimalism. The realization that there is little in the way of historical reliability in any of the OT. For this we owe them a significant debt.


I'm reading The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein currently. Really good book . Thank you for the informative link.

Shakespeare Insult 13 – Henry IV Part 1
“That trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years?”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 11:20 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
I have only one complaint with The Bible Unearthed. At the end, Finkelstein deviates from his own methodology by treating "Josiah" as a historical character. But there is no archaeological attestation for Josiah.

It's a minor quibble but he should have stuck to his own method.

However, on the plus side, Egyptologist Donald Redford has determined from Egyptian place names in the story that it dates to the Saite Period...basically the 7th century BC which is what Finkelstein determined using Israeli evidence. Redford's work can be found in his book: Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
02-10-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Ron Wyatt Finds The Blood Of Christ,Won't Produce It
The funny thing, in my opinion, is there actually is a context in which it all does make sense. Not that there actually ever was an Exodus, but there is a way to actually make sense of why those myths are presented the way they were. It has nothing to do with religion. It's the Northern Kingdom vs the Southern Kingdom.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: