Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[maklelan]

No, Bill. I insist that I must be allowed, if I am not convinced they are noteworthy, to see them as coincidental. I never said they "must be coincidence." I said they probably are. You guys who say that's a pathetic view are using a double standard, since where you are not convinced by the critics' parallels you dismiss them as probably coincidental. You don't engage them if you don't think they are noteworthy; in your view, there's nothing material to engage. Why can't you see that's exactly where I'm coming from?

Is the above phrase referring just to the Madagascar island? That's not Egyptian, by the way. The topic is Egyptian names, and I'm unaware of any Egyptian parallels that y'all have accounted for.

The parallels you (every time 'you' occurs it will collectively refer to the non-Mormons engaged in this issue) bring up can all be explained, but you cannot account for many of the parallels we point out.

I'd like to see a book with all these correlations published. It would be the "Handbook for Anti-Mormons who are Still Stuck in 19th Century Polemics." Then one of you guys would do a book review and all it would say is: "It's all coincidence. Anyone can see by the name of this island in Madagascar that nothing in heaven or on earth can ever mount up to anything more than a coincidence." Critics would wonder why you don't engage the evidence, and your only response would be, "I don't have to because my mind is perfectly comfortable with calling it all a coincidence." And then every scholar in the world would laugh. Luckily, you don't have the eyes of the whole world on your lame excuses, only other Mormons and non-Mormons, and (just like ill-informed Mormons) any evidence at all that supports your case is latched onto like it was made of solid gold. You don't have to be afraid of your fallacies being exposed and you can just throw a blanket of coincidence over pages of evidence without even looking at it. What the heck, you're not responsible to anyone or anything here.

I posted a short summary of just some of the name correlations that have been found. Would anyone care to address it?

I said: "if I am not convinced they are noteworthy." I don't accept the "existence of parallels between the BoM and Mesoamerica"; to me they are contrived and cherry-picked. One syllable similarities? Where's the Mesoamerican word that sounds like "moo"? There's nothing to be explained here, by the two options you offer me.

I pointed out more than two syllable similarities. Feel free to engage that evidence.

[Bill Hamblin]

You think this is a superior position, somehow? Well to turn it around, my position, on the other hand, allows both 19th century parallels, and coincidence.

My position allows 19C parallels, coincidence and ancient parallels. And that is the superior position.

What you do not do, however, is provide any other explanation for ancient parallels beyond mere coincidence. You've expressly said this on at least one occasion. Methodologically speaking, which model is superior, one that provides reasoned cause and effect for phenomena, or one that merely explains phenomena by coincidence.

It is true coincidental parallels occur. That does not prove that all parallels are coincidence. This is precisely what you are claiming when you say that because Comoros and Moroni are similar to Cumorah and Moroni, therefore, all ancient parallels are coincidence as well. You not only offer no other explanation, you don't even think you need to. Your position is silly; it is a mere excuse for not engaging the evidence.

[consiglieri]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but it strikes me that there is an effort at "spin control" by some posters to characterize the presence of Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon as just a "couple" of names that "may" be Egyptian, or as a mere handful of monosyllabic names, such as "moo" or "woof."

This concerns me because it is obviously incorrect, and flying so in the face of the evidence adduced in this thread alone, seems to smack of political machinations rather than evidentiary evaluations.

Kherihor/Korihor is obviously more than one syllable. As are Pahor(an) and Paanch(i).

"Aha" gets extra credit in my book because not only is it a soldier given the name of a soldier, but it is also a rather silly name in English. A pun was intended in an earlier thread using this name. But really, how many people in writing fiction would intentionally give a character a silly name that indicates a discovery of some sort (Aha!)? And then it turns out not to be so silly at all but completely Egyptian in a book that claims to have Egyptian ties, and it works in context. That's pretty good.

Paanchi also gets high marks from me because of the double-a; a combination completely foreign to English. And it is unlikely Joseph Smith had ever heard of the Egyptian goddess of truth, "Ma'at," prior to 1830.

Similarly, it is my understanding that the most common prefix in Egyptian names is Pa-, and in the pages of the Book of Mormon, we read of a chief judge named Pa-horan; and what is more, he has three sons to whom he gives the names of Pa-horan; Pa-anchi; and Pa-cumeni.

And then we learn that the most common name in ancient Egypt was Amun, or Ammon, after the sun-God; Amun-Ra. In the Book of Mormon, the most common name is Ammon and its variants. Ammon is used for three different people in the Book of Mormon, as well as Hel-aman; Amni; Amnor; Aminadab; Ammonihah; and so forth. It is a very common name in the Book of Mormon but lay hidden in the text for a hundred years before somebody discovered it.

So I tend to see that the Book of Mormon is guilty of being ancient, and of having ancient ties to Egypt. The fact that it seems difficult to account for such a situation should not enter into the equation, I think. Either the Book of Mormon appears to have such ties or it does not. If we leap ahead in our thinking, and allow where such a conclusion will lead us to govern our conclusion in the first place, we are doing ourselves a disservice, I think, if our goal is to arrive at truth.

By this, I mean the following: The great unspoken assumption that is guiding much of what is written on this thread is the common understanding on all sides of the argument that, if the Book of Mormon actually has demonstrable ties to ancient Egypt, those ties would be pretty hard to account for in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, given that Egyptology was in its infancy. Hence, if we make such an admission as to the presence of Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon, we are going a long way down the road of saying that there must be something decidely odd going on with the translation of the Book of Mormon; perhaps something supernatural; perhaps something divine; and pretty soon we are knocking on the missionaries' door asking for baptism.

If we are aware that any admission that the Book of Mormon has Egyptian ties could lead us down this path, and if we see this path as forbidden for any reason, then our conclusion regarding Egyptian ties in the Book of Mormon will likely be influenced not by the evidence itself, but rather by where such a conclusion will take us.

----------------------------------------

I have a problem with the idea that the Comoros/Moroni pairing is devastating to the Book of Mormon. Why is it that such a pairing makes any and all Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon meaningless coincidence?

The argument seems to be put forth that Comoros/Moroni is a coincidence that pairs up with a couple of names in the Book of Mormon that are associated there, as well, and that this serves as a means of dismissing any other correlations between Book of Mormon names and ancient Egyptian names, no matter how numerous or how striking.

My problem is that I think this line of thinking not only divests scholars of a means of testing the Book of Mormon to see if it is ancient, but it also effectively divests scholars of using such means to test ANY book to see if it is ancient; or to test ANY ancient book to try to see how old it is.

If the wordpair of Comoros/Moroni means that any Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon are coincidence; does not this exact same example mean the same thing for Greek names in the Illiad? Any Greek names in the Illiad are coincidence, using this same line of reasoning. It seems this argument of coincidence cuts a wide swath, and the implications of such an argument reach far beyond the homey world of Mormon apologetics.

Finally, let me say that, after giving it many days' thought, I am, in the end, singularly unimpressed with the Comoros/Moroni connection. Here's why--First, there is no contextual correlation between Comoros/Moroni and Cumorah/Moroni in the Book of Mormon. Comoros is an island; Cumorah is a hill. Moroni is a city; Moroni is a person. No contextual match; just a coincidence of a similar ordering of letters.

Next, how many names of cities, towns, islands, oceans, seas, countries, counties, hills, rivers, etc., actually exist in the world? My guess would be somewhere around a million. Out of such a plenitude of names, and out of such a plenitude of languages, over the breadth of the planet and through the course of its history, I would be shocked if somebody who rooted around enough could NOT find a match such as Comoros/Moroni. Looked at in this light, I think that this match becomes meaningless as an argument for coincidence when the numerous multisyllabic and unusual Egyptian names are pointed out in the Book of Mormon. Out of all the languages on the earth and all the place names of every kind of place, to come up with only one such match which is not contextual, and is not even precise, surprises me less now than it did when I first heard about it on this thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hammer]

Egyptian people did trading with all other peoples of their contenant. Wasn't Joseph sold into Egypt?

It isn't surprising to me that someone hearing a name of an Egyptian trader liked it and began its use among people other than the Egyptians.

[charity]

consiglieri, you called the shot right. We (believing members) are not put into any kind of intellectual quandary if there are occasionally coincidences in word pairs in the Book of Mormon, because that in no way negates the veracity of other word pairs as not being coincidences.

However, the non-believer has no way to accept both alternatives. He/she has to insist on coincidence only. Otherwise, he/she is left without excuse. Actually, then that person has to find another reason why he/she does not develop the faith necessary to become a believer.

[e=mc2]

know I am not supposed to be merely cheer leading, but this is a significant thread because I am seeing Dude being taken to the absolute cleaners here, and its with one of *my* very favorite evidences for the BofM, the Egyptian and other ancient names!

Dude, I have to say you are dodging everything thrown your way based on one mere coincidence (and not all that powerful or effective). I agree with Hamblin, Consiglieri, etc., you haven't engaged at all but merely dismissed.

The interesting thing no one has brought up yet is that Matt ROper has ALSO found that Aha is a HEBREW name found in inscriptions. (If I remember correctly). Perhaps an Egyptian name also found in inscriptions dating to 600 - 700 B.C. on talley sticks. (Bill help me out here if I'm wrong, isn't it as a highlight in one of the FARMS Reviews or the Journal of BofM Studies?) ANyway its a double whammy, being BOTH ancient Hebrew and Egyptian. That it is a singular syllable is absolutely irrelevant to its authenticity. And a NON-BIBLICAL name at that! Yet genuinely historical, and dating to the same time frame. That's fun, but when this happens for many MORE names ALSO, then that's far and away more weight than mere fun. It becomes evidence for plausible authenticity.

Best,

Kerry

[e=mc2]

Never mind, I found it. It's in the Journal of BofM Studies, 9/1 (2000): 43 - "In addition to Alma and Sariah, a number of other Nephite names are attested in ancient Hebrew inscriptions. These include Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam, NONE of which appear in English Bibles. (my emphasis). I would also add, none are in View of Hebrews or the Solomon Spaulding manuscript either are they?

Again Dude, call it coincidence, but your credibility to engage in thoughtful analysis and issues slides away into nothing, and you simply cannot be taken serious in much olf anything you say in that case.

Best,

Kerry

P.S. It is also a most beautiful "coincidence" that at just this tme era, (600 B.C.) the Israelites were actually HIRING ***EGYPTIAN*** scribes, and mercenaries, and the cultural overlaps of Israel with Egypt were very *strong*, but think nothing of THAT either, its just coincidence after all.

[AKS]

How many BOM names have no semitic/Egyptian roots? Certainly not every character in the bom should have a name right from ancient Isreal?

[Bill Hamblin]

Kerry and the Italian lawyer have it exactly right. The appeal to coincidence is the weakest possible response to evidence in favor of the BOM. That it may be true in a few cases does not make it a universal panacea allowing critics to summarily dismiss all evidence in favor of antiquity. As weâ??ve said before, this position is a faith-claim not a reasoned argument. The theory is clearly controlling the data.

[Bill Hamblin]

I should add that onomastic comparison to determine ethnicity is a standard methodology in ANE studies. Hyksos in Egypt, the Indo-European origin of the Mitanni, the migrations of the Hurrians, the background of the Sea Peoples are all established by onomastic comparisons--by determining the linguistic origin of personal names. Anyone proclaiming that the relationship between Indo-European names and Mitanni royal and divine personal names is merely coincidentally would be dismissed without further argument.

[consiglieri]

I should add that onomastic comparison to determine ethnicity is a standard methodology in ANE studies. Hyksos in Egypt, the Indo-European origin of the Mitanni, the migrations of the Hurrians, the background of the Sea Peoples are all established by onomastic comparisons--by determining the linguistic origin of personal names. Anyone proclaiming that the relationship between Indo-European names and Mitanni royal and divine personal names is merely coincidentally would be dismissed without further argument.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for the input. I felt certain that such methods would be used in other fields than just Book of Mormon apologetics. So I see it actually has a name and is called "onomastic omparison," which is a standard methodology in ANE studies.

If we follow the Dude's argument to its logical conclusion, then, it must mean that none of these methods or conclusions obtained through onomastic comparison is valid. They must be dismissed as coincidence. And we have proof in the Book of Mormon for that proposition. The Book of Mormon, being an obvious fiction, nevertheless contains the pair of names Moroni/Cumorah. These link up to the geographically situated name pair Moroni/Cumoros. Not only does this "coincidence" show that all Egyptian or Hebrew or Akkadian names in the Book of Mormon are likewise "coincidence," it undermines the entire methodology of "onomastic comparisons" in related fields.

The Dude has single-handedly undermined an entire field of studies. Nice work.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Egyptian people did trading with all other peoples of their contenant. Wasn't Joseph sold into Egypt?

It isn't surprising to me that someone hearing a name of an Egyptian trader liked it and began its use among people other than the Egyptians.

Nor is it surprising to me that, in modern day English, we use all sorts of names for our children without regard to the cultures and languages from which they originally stemmed. My given name comes from Latin and means "Raven." My wife's name is Deborah, and is obviously Hebrew. My daughter's name is Julianna, which I think could be traced to ancient Rome. And yet these names were likely given by parents with no concept of the derivations and etymologies involved.

Would it be so surprising to see a similar situation amongst other peoples, including those in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

know I am not supposed to be merely cheer leading, but this is a significant thread because I am seeing Dude being taken to the absolute cleaners here, and its with one of *my* very favorite evidences for the BofM, the Egyptian and other ancient names!

Dude, I have to say you are dodging everything thrown your way based on one mere coincidence (and not all that powerful or effective). I agree with Hamblin, Consiglieri, etc., you haven't engaged at all but merely dismissed.

The interesting thing no one has brought up yet is that Matt ROper has ALSO found that Aha is a HEBREW name found in inscriptions. (If I remember correctly). Perhaps an Egyptian name also found in inscriptions dating to 600 - 700 B.C. on talley sticks. (Bill help me out here if I'm wrong, isn't it as a highlight in one of the FARMS Reviews or the Journal of BofM Studies?) ANyway its a double whammy, being BOTH ancient Hebrew and Egyptian. That it is a singular syllable is absolutely irrelevant to its authenticity. And a NON-BIBLICAL name at that! Yet genuinely historical, and dating to the same time frame. That's fun, but when this happens for many MORE names ALSO, then that's far and away more weight than mere fun. It becomes evidence for plausible authenticity.

Best,

Kerry

I don't mean to pile on here, but it is hard to resist. Another thread just started mentions the remarkable coincidence of the Book of Mormon identifying by the name "Mulek" a son of King Zedekiah; and that a close variant of that name shows up in the name of a cistern in the book of Jeremiah, but translated in such a way in the KJV as to be undecipherable to anyone not familiar with Hebrew. And then to have a "seal" found which apparently belonged to the same character! At some point, "coincidence" is just too small a word to account for the evidence.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Matt Andrews]

Kerry and the Italian lawyer have it exactly right. The appeal to coincidence is the weakest possible response to evidence in favor of the BOM. That it may be true in a few cases does not make it a universal panacea allowing critics to summarily dismiss all evidence in favor of antiquity. As weâ??ve said before, this position is a faith-claim not a reasoned argument. The theory is clearly controlling the data.

If you are the one claiming meaningful similarities, it seems it would be up to you to show that they are beyond coincidence, not your critics. The same would be true of Vernal Holley, or Tom Donofrio, or any other critic trying to prove meaningful similarites between the BoM and 19th century influences.

Isn't the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

[maklelan]

Egyptian people did trading with all other peoples of their contenant. Wasn't Joseph sold into Egypt?

It isn't surprising to me that someone hearing a name of an Egyptian trader liked it and began its use among people other than the Egyptians.

Nor is it surprising to me that, in modern day English, we use all sorts of names for our children without regard to the cultures and languages from which they originally stemmed. My given name comes from Latin and means "Raven." My wife's name is Deborah, and is obviously Hebrew. My daughter's name is Julianna, which I think could be traced to ancient Rome. And yet these names were likely given by parents with no concept of the derivations and etymologies involved.

Would it be so surprising to see a similar situation amongst other peoples, including those in the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

A list of names brought back from Palestine by Nebuchadnezzer shows Egyptian names were very popular among the Jews.

[maklelan]

Kerry and the Italian lawyer have it exactly right. The appeal to coincidence is the weakest possible response to evidence in favor of the BOM. That it may be true in a few cases does not make it a universal panacea allowing critics to summarily dismiss all evidence in favor of antiquity. As weâ??ve said before, this position is a faith-claim not a reasoned argument. The theory is clearly controlling the data.

If you are the one claiming meaningful similarities, it seems it would be up to you to show that they are beyond coincidence, not your critics. The same would be true of Vernal Holley, or Tom Donofrio, or any other critic trying to prove meaningful similarites between the BoM and 19th century influences.

Isn't the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

No. It's impossible to prove something true. Proving something false is the only way to sift through theories. A theory is a theory until it is proven false. The theory of evolution is not still a theory because fundamentalists won't let it become fact. It's a theory because it hasn't been proven false yet. You have the burden of proof. We have supplied ample evidence, and your collective repsonse has been, "Nu-uh!" Prove the correlations false or they can not come down.

That there are similarities between 19th century culture and the BoM is not unexpected. The Book of Mormon can be shown to have real 19th Century influences in it and still come from an ancient text. It cannot, however, be shown to have real ancient Near Eatern influences in it and still be a 19th century creation. We have shown those correlations. The burden is upon you to show them to be false.

[charity]

Matt Andrews asked, "Isn't the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?"

I would say so. The dude, and others have made the claim that the name similarities are all based on coincidence. I think they should furnish us with the proof. That is their burden.

[The Dude]

You think this is a superior position, somehow? Well to turn it around, my position, on the other hand, allows both 19th century parallels, and coincidence.

My position allows 19C parallels, coincidence and ancient parallels. And that is the superior position.

Well Bill, anyone who allows for the supernatural will be able to "explain" more than the person who doesn't allow for the supernatural. If that's what it takes for you to achieve explanatory power, I'd call you a cheater.

What you do not do, however, is provide any other explanation for ancient parallels beyond mere coincidence. You've expressly said this on at least one occasion. Methodologically speaking, which model is superior, one that provides reasoned cause and effect for phenomena, or one that merely explains phenomena by coincidence.

Oh, I have another explanation to go along with mere coincidence, but I'm not going to bury it on page 9 of this thread. As I said several pages ago, I will start a new thread when I have time to babysit.

It is true coincidental parallels occur. That does not prove that all parallels are coincidence. This is precisely what you are claiming when you say that because Comoros and Moroni are similar to Cumorah and Moroni, therefore, all ancient parallels are coincidence as well. You not only offer no other explanation, you don't even think you need to. Your position is silly; it is a mere excuse for not engaging the evidence.

Your rendering of my position is silly. Have fun with your squeaky toy.

[Jerubaal]

Oh, I have another explanation to go along with mere coincidence, but I'm not going to bury it on page 9 of this thread. As I said several pages ago, I will start a new thread when I have time to babysit.

Let's hope it's better than Tarski's "clouds" thread a few months back.

[Noggin]

Hmmm... I wonder if the number of words in the original BoM is some factor of the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. Now that would be a coincidence, would in not?

The Dude.

You are killing me. I really wanted to reply to the contorted name parallels drawn by Her Amun on the first page but instead was weak, and succumbed to pushing reply on your post, which made me snort outloud with laughter. I am fortunate I was not drinking anything at the time. It's late. I know.

Mormonism is just one more cog in the wheel of things that need to be debunked. Like space aliens probing angry farm workers in Nebraska or Kansas, or that the Alien really did fight with Predator at the center of the North Pole ice berg... oh wait, that one did happen.. I saw it with my own eyes at the movies.

For Charity:

Matt Andrews asked, "Isn't the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?"

I would say so. The dude, and others have made the claim that the name similarities are all based on coincidence. I think they should furnish us with the proof. That is their burden.

Uh. No. Your side made the first claim. Can you see that you are claiming that the similarities shine a light of proof for authenticty? If you are interested, google "basic logic" or "burden of proof" to see who has the burden.

Here is a link you will probably identify with.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

It's a theist arguing that atheists should have to prove that god does not exist. It completely follows what you are thinking in this thread... for the most part. It has been established for quite some time that theists own the burden of proof for their god. Just the same as if I wanted to claim that I had a cranky green leprechaun in my garage that only I could see. You likely would not care about him. BUt what if I told you he was going to hurt you and yours? Then you would be after me to prove it or you would dismiss me altogether as a lunatic. Your god is threatening to send people to non heaven states. The burden is on you to prove that he, above all other invented gods of this world, is the true one. I'll save you the trouble... I have already dismissed that god of yours.

Noggin

[Jerubaal]

Hmmm... I wonder if the number of words in the original BoM is some factor of the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. Now that would be a coincidence, would in not?

The Dude.

You are killing me. I really wanted to reply to the contorted name parallels drawn by Her Amun on the first page but instead was weak, and succumbed to pushing reply on your post, which made me snort outloud with laughter. I am fortunate I was not drinking anything at the time. It's late. I know.

Mormonism is just one more cog in the wheel of things that need to be debunked. Like space aliens probing angry farm workers in Nebraska or Kansas, or that the Alien really did fight with Predator at the center of the North Pole ice berg... oh wait, that one did happen.. I saw it with my own eyes at the movies.

Noggin

While we are being sarcastic, why don't you drop by your nearest temple visitor's center and watch Testaments. That certainly ought to measure up to your objective standards of truth for the Book of Mormon. After all, you will have seen it with your own eyes!

[maklelan]

Hmmm... I wonder if the number of words in the original BoM is some factor of the number of stones in the Great Pyramid. Now that would be a coincidence, would in not?

The Dude.

You are killing me. I really wanted to reply to the contorted name parallels drawn by Her Amun on the first page but instead was weak, and succumbed to pushing reply on your post, which made me snort outloud with laughter. I am fortunate I was not drinking anything at the time. It's late. I know.

Mormonism is just one more cog in the wheel of things that need to be debunked. Like space aliens probing angry farm workers in Nebraska or Kansas, or that the Alien really did fight with Predator at the center of the North Pole ice berg... oh wait, that one did happen.. I saw it with my own eyes at the movies.

For Charity:

Matt Andrews asked, "Isn't the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?"

I would say so. The dude, and others have made the claim that the name similarities are all based on coincidence. I think they should furnish us with the proof. That is their burden.

Uh. No. Your side made the first claim. Can you see that you are claiming that the similarities shine a light of proof for authenticty? If you are interested, google "basic logic" or "burden of proof" to see who has the burden.

Here is a link you will probably identify with.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

It's a theist arguing that atheists should have to prove that god does not exist. It completely follows what you are thinking in this thread... for the most part. It has been established for quite some time that theists own the burden of proof for their god. Just the same as if I wanted to claim that I had a cranky green leprechaun in my garage that only I could see. You likely would not care about him. BUt what if I told you he was going to hurt you and yours? Then you would be after me to prove it or you would dismiss me altogether as a lunatic. Your god is threatening to send people to non heaven states. The burden is on you to prove that he, above all other invented gods of this world, is the true one. I'll save you the trouble... I have already dismissed that god of yours.

Noggin

And what of my assertion?

[Noggin]

While we are being sarcastic, why don't you drop by your nearest temple visitor's center and watch Testaments. That certainly ought to measure up to your objective standards of truth for the Book of Mormon. After all, you will have seen it with your own eyes!

I like that wit!

By the way, if I ever get to 2,220 posts like you, will my name tag icon in the top left hand corner also say

"Enforcer of Mormon Orthodoxy"

???

Because, I don't like being mislabeled a whole heck of a lot.

Because that's kind of like when the Jews requested the Mormons quit baptizing their dead relatives, but the Church did not take the Jews seriously and they, uh, accidentally kept at it... baptizing them anyway and didn't they go so far as to call the deceased Jews-- Mormons? Kind of excited a lot of people there for a minute or decade. I think I'd feel just like that. Just saying.

I'll have to keep my posts to a bare minimum. Until I can address my concerns with admin. I am sure that they will lend a sympathetic ear. I refuse to use one of those blasted emoticons that displays my jocular mood.

Noggin

[Noggin]

And what of my assertion?

Your assertion is ridiculous. You can claim everything you want. That is your personal safety zone. But while you are at it, please try to ignore that Islam, Catholicism, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Christianity and a smattering of many more religions can claim the very same thing. They also make way in their minds to destroy your arguments as you do theirs.

Way I see it, it is a engrossing dance of finger pointing between all theists claiming exculsivity. Each one trying to shout louder than the last one that HE and HE alone has THE TRUTH!!!

So sit back and relax, enjoy your claims of exclusive stamp-of-approval-from-God. You are one of hundreds who has that stamp. So now, who has to prove what again?

Noggin

[maklelan]

And what of my assertion?

Your assertion is ridiculous. You can claim everything you want. That is your personal safety zone. But while you are at it, please try to ignore that Islam, Catholicism, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Christianity and a smattering of many more religions can claim the very same thing. They also make way in their minds to destroy your arguments as you do theirs.

Way I see it, it is a engrossing dance of finger pointing between all theists claiming exculsivity. Each one trying to shout louder than the last one that HE and HE alone has THE TRUTH!!!

So sit back and relax, enjoy your claims of exclusive stamp-of-approval-from-God. You are one of hundreds who has that stamp. So now, who has to prove what again?

Noggin

Please point out where I at all reference my theism. Then point out where I explain that I have approval from God. Then, if you don't mind actually reading what I had to say, why don't you respond to it instead of formulating mindless insults?