Re: Sniveling Coward

You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Sniveling Coward

JTEM

29 Jun 2009 21:02

Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying
about my cite, my "century old text" only a few
short weeks ago...

: Ah, well, there's one of your problems, you're a
: century out of date! That explains some of the
: difficulties you have. Do make an effort to
: catch up, eh?

Another time he almost sounded like he has an
I.Q. in the double digits, but there was a huge
problem...

: Exactly the problem: you cite a century old
: book as if it were the state of the field currently
: or that the basis of the field has remained what
: was done centuiries ago and not reverified since.
: It's like rejecting evolution because Darwin was
: Christian.

Here's the problem: There's no "verification." In
fact, the loser was challenged, challenged again
and again to justify his interpretation, but steadfastly
refuses to do so... while squaking about 'Gs' and
then claiming he has.

As has been pointing out to him, the explicit claim,
"I found the name of Omri in the text" includes an
implicit claim that you can map the text to a very
specific time and place.

This isn't rocket science here. The nutters are claiming
to find a biblical king: You have to connect
the text to the place where this king supposedly was,
at a time he was supposedly there.

But none of the bible thumpers do this. They can't do
it. You have never done this.

Re: Sniveling Coward

Quick links: