selek Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 The latest thread offered by an lds. Conveniently titled for my purposes:The biggest Bible debacle I've encountered yetAnd in that thread, as usual, it ISN'T the Bible on trial, but your preposterous claims.Why haven't you offered a cogent rebuttal to Seattle Writer yet, Hoops?
Hoops22 Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 And in that thread, as usual, it ISN'T the Bible on trial, but your preposterous claims.Why haven't you offered a cogent rebuttal to Seattle Writer yet, Hoops?Check out the very, very first responding post.
selek Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Check out the very, very first responding post.Honorentheos is not, in point of fact LDS.You still haven't offered a cogent rebuttal to Seattle Writer's arguments, Hoops.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Honorentheos is not, in point of fact LDS.You still haven't offered a cogent rebuttal to Seattle Writer's arguments, Hoops.Oh snap!!! Pooned!
SeattleGhostWriter Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 I just updated the article, made all the necessary corrections. Sorry it took so long.
Chaos Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Selek and Hoops have been removed from the thread.
SeattleGhostWriter Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 My apologies, Mr. Seattle. I was teasing you thusly:You said the article you wrote would dismantle Hank's argument(s). I read much of it, and don't come to the same conclusion you do. In fact, I found it to be the same mormon argument, albeit couched in feigned adoration for fairness. It is:Bible badBoM good.How is it the same Mormon Argument? Where do I state the same "Mormon Argument"? Are you familiar with Hank Hanegraaff and how he used the same cliched Anti-LDS Christian Rhetoric in his approach? The Bible Answer man stated that one must be equipped to grasp truths in order to distinguish between fact and fiction. The reality is that Hanegraaff used very weak argumentation. Stated that there is no such thing as "reformed Egyptian" yet, linguists who study how languages evolve, are adopted, and how they come to change seem to counter the Bible Answer Man's statement that "archaeology does not support the notion of..." does not take into account the understanding of Linguistical study of Proto Semetic languages that Hebrew, Phoenecian, and Egyptian were daughters of. In fact, linguists state that the Proto-Semitic language does not exist - well, I referenced David Steinberg and his article History of the Ancient and Modern Hebrew Language. I will let him speak on this subject for you:Since the Semitic languages are clearly closely related, it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable language called Proto-Semitic. Although no records of Proto-Semitic exist, through the comparative study of the various languages it is possible to deduce, in outline, Proto-Semitic
SeattleGhostWriter Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Selek and Hoops have been removed from the thread.Ah man, I just responded to Hoops and now he wont see it lol....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.