what happen to kong hee dishonesty case?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
The Archeological digs are done by experts in the Archeological field, and uses the Bible as reference to try and track down remains, ruins, digs... what nots.
But you provided nothing. Not even any suggestion that the Amelkits were innocent, or the fact that violent nomads roam middle east and central asia.
What I have told you all have some archeological date and reference NOT just by bible archeological digs and findings, but also in conjunction with world archeological societies.
Unless you are going to say that its all fake and that its a zionist conspiracy.
So you agree you used all biblical sources?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
So you agree you used all biblical sources?
No I didnt.
The only source I used from the bible was the content describing the situation and circumstances of the Amalekites.
But the existence of such violent nomadic tribes are from proper Archeological journals suggesting Hyksos may be the Amalekites. Is it ? I dont know. Its up to the professionals in that field to determine. But that is not the issue. The fact is that such violent nomadic tribes exist in the middle east and central asia. But from which ethinicity or tribe is another matter altogether.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
No I didnt.
The only source I used from the bible was the content describing the situation and circumstances of the Amalekites.
But the existence of such violent nomadic tribes are from proper Archeological journals suggesting Hyksos may be the Amalekites. Is it ? I dont know. Its up to the professionals in that field to determine. But that is not the issue. The fact is that such violent nomadic tribes exist in the middle east and central asia. But from which ethinicity or tribe is another matter altogether.
You still want to lie?
This is what you quote. All your sources are biblical sources, citing bible verses. Eh, seriously, you go Uni before? You know what is accurate sourcing , bibliography etc? --
"The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Gen 14:7), otherwise known as the northern part of the Negev (Num 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau's eldest boy) by a concubine named Timna (Gen 36:12) and became a "clan" or "chief" in the tribe of Esau (Gen 36:15). Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites. There is every possibility that they had known about the promise of the land of Canaan that had been given to Esau's twin brother, Jacob; therefore, they should not have felt any threat to their interests in the Negev had this promise been remembered and taken seriously. After all, the promise was to be a means of blessing Amalek along with all the other nations (Gen 12:3) if only they, like Abraham, would have believed. Instead they "came" (wayyabo') and attacked Israel at Rephidim--some distance south of the north-central district of the Sinai where they lived. [EBCOT, Ex 17]
Indeed, given the travel path of Israel, there would have been no reason to even suspect that Israel would have tried to invade Palestine--this attack was altogether an act of aggression and attempted violation.
- At that point God pronounces judgment on Amalek (including a prophetic allusion to continued conflict from Amalek: "from generation to generation"), to oppose them as a nation and to destroy them as a national entity sometime in the future. This has the effect of 'expanding' the original judicial charge from only the initial atrocity to one including recurring patterns of atrocity ('from gen to gen') [we will also see this in the discussion below on the 'walking in the sins of the fathers'.]
- Israel sins against God in Num 14, and so they are beaten by Amalek in a presumptuous attack (note: the issue is not ethnic background!)
- Israel wanders around for 40 years in the wilderness, while information about the power of Israel's God permeates the Land.
- As Israel is about to enter the Land, God reminds them of the instruction to destroy the Amalek nation.
- Also at this time, Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet specifically prophesizes to the King of Moab of the destruction of Amalek (Num 24.20). Moab and Midian were closes allies of Amalek throughout biblical history, and this prophesy would have been well known by the leadership of Amalek before they started the next couple of centuries of oppression and violence against Israel. [That Balaam was a famous prophet in this area has been confirmed by archeology.]
- The Amalekites undoubtedly saw the conquests of Joshua, but there is no mention of them in the biblical record during this 10-25 year period.
- Then, beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behavior of their forefathers--oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even AFTER the 'annihilation' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).
- But--during these same 200-400 years--Amalekites were welcomed into Israel as immigrants! (See the discussion on 2 Sam 1 below). There was a period of 'amnesty' and 'clemency' unparalleled in ancient history up to this time. God gave the individuals within the nation centuries to 'get out' (or maybe even time to reform the nation; it is possible that this judgment pronouncement was conditional without being stated so explicitly, as was the case with Nineveh in Jonah 3.4 and as embedded in the general principle of Jer 26.1-6 and Jer 18.7-8: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. ") As with the vast majority of the Canaanite population, the sensible Amalekites would have migrated somewhere else. All that would have been left at the time of Saul would have been a leadership raised and steeped in anti-Israel violence and hatred. This is NOT some innocent nation, protecting its homeland from an invading and greedy people. This is the sins of the fathers being continued by their children.
- It is only after 200-400 years of opportunity and influences to change, and after 200-400 years of continued (and actually escalating) violence against Israel (who had not even been sanctioned or ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!), that God decides to execute the judgment given earlier.
- The execution of the king of the Amalekites by Samuel (in 1 Samuel 15) shows that the judgment on the Amalekites was not SOLELY due to the ancient, initial savagery against Israel,
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
You still want to lie?
This is what you quote. All your sources are biblical sources, citing bible verses. Eh, seriously, you go Uni before? You know what is accurate sourcing , bibliography etc? --
"The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Gen 14:7), otherwise known as the northern part of the Negev (Num 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau's eldest boy) by a concubine named Timna (Gen 36:12) and became a "clan" or "chief" in the tribe of Esau (Gen 36:15). Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites. There is every possibility that they had known about the promise of the land of Canaan that had been given to Esau's twin brother, Jacob; therefore, they should not have felt any threat to their interests in the Negev had this promise been remembered and taken seriously. After all, the promise was to be a means of blessing Amalek along with all the other nations (Gen 12:3) if only they, like Abraham, would have believed. Instead they "came" (wayyabo') and attacked Israel at Rephidim--some distance south of the north-central district of the Sinai where they lived. [EBCOT, Ex 17]
Indeed, given the travel path of Israel, there would have been no reason to even suspect that Israel would have tried to invade Palestine--this attack was altogether an act of aggression and attempted violation.
- At that point God pronounces judgment on Amalek (including a prophetic allusion to continued conflict from Amalek: "from generation to generation"), to oppose them as a nation and to destroy them as a national entity sometime in the future. This has the effect of 'expanding' the original judicial charge from only the initial atrocity to one including recurring patterns of atrocity ('from gen to gen') [we will also see this in the discussion below on the 'walking in the sins of the fathers'.]
- Israel sins against God in Num 14, and so they are beaten by Amalek in a presumptuous attack (note: the issue is not ethnic background!)
- Israel wanders around for 40 years in the wilderness, while information about the power of Israel's God permeates the Land.
- As Israel is about to enter the Land, God reminds them of the instruction to destroy the Amalek nation.
- Also at this time, Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet specifically prophesizes to the King of Moab of the destruction of Amalek (Num 24.20). Moab and Midian were closes allies of Amalek throughout biblical history, and this prophesy would have been well known by the leadership of Amalek before they started the next couple of centuries of oppression and violence against Israel. [That Balaam was a famous prophet in this area has been confirmed by archeology.]
- The Amalekites undoubtedly saw the conquests of Joshua, but there is no mention of them in the biblical record during this 10-25 year period.
- Then, beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behavior of their forefathers--oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even AFTER the 'annihilation' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).
- But--during these same 200-400 years--Amalekites were welcomed
into Israel as immigrants! (See the discussion on 2 Sam 1
below). There was a period of 'amnesty' and 'clemency'
unparalleled in ancient history up to this
time. God gave the individuals within the
nation centuries to 'get out' (or
maybe even time to reform the nation; it
is possible that this judgment pronouncement was
conditional without being stated so explicitly, as was the case
with Nineveh in Jonah 3.4 and as embedded in the general principle
of Jer 26.1-6 and Jer 18.7-8: "At one moment I might speak
concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull
down, or to destroy it; 8 if
that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will
relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on
it. ") As with the vast majority of the
Canaanite population, the sensible Amalekites would have migrated
somewhere else. All that would have been left at the time of Saul
would have been a leadership raised and steeped in anti-Israel
violence and hatred. This is NOT some innocent nation, protecting
its homeland from an invading and greedy people. This is the sins
of the fathers being continued by their
children.
- It is only after 200-400 years of opportunity and influences to
change, and after 200-400 years of continued (and actually
escalating) violence against Israel (who had not even been
sanctioned or ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!), that God
decides to execute the judgment given earlier.
- The execution of the king of the Amalekites by Samuel (in 1 Samuel 15) shows that the judgment on the Amalekites was not SOLELY due to the ancient, initial savagery against Israel,
Not lying. The situation and circumstances are from the bible. Explaining in detail the Amelekites.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Not lying. The situation and circumstances are from the bible. Explaining in detail the Amelekites.
If you have been in a Uni before (which I doubt seriously now), you would know that citing all those sources will give you a either a fail or a very bad grade.
If you want to be objective in a paper or a research answer, you have to cite from different sources, and in this case, christian AND non-christian sources.
But since there are no non-christian sources, you should also add that the christian sources you cite might be biased anf that you should also explore the OTHER possible perspective, just for the sake of being objective.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
If you have been in a Uni before (which I doubt seriously now), you would know that citing all those sources will give you a either a fail or a very bad grade.
If you want to be objective in a paper or a research answer, you have to cite from different sources, and in this case, christian AND non-christian sources.
But since there are no non-christian sources, you should also add that the christian sources you cite might be biased anf that you should also explore the OTHER possible perspective, just for the sake of being objective.
So.. what if they DONT exist. Whats up now ? Do u have concrete evidence that they DO NOT EXIST ?
Check up Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville. They used scholarly scientific analysis of existing secular sources. The publications of these men
provide a reasonable basis for beginning a coherentreconstruction of the ancient history of Egypt and the Middle East illustrating the fidelity of the Old Testament narrative.How about you give me some non-christian sources then. Since you the one claiming otherwise.
You seem to have a knack in asking lots of questions and demanding sources when you can provide no sources at all. How about u balance it out ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
So.. what if they DONT exist. Whats up now ? Do u have concrete evidence that they DO NOT EXIST ?
Check up Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville. They used scholarly scientific analysis of existing secular sources. The publications of these men
provide a reasonable basis for beginning a coherentreconstruction of the ancient history of Egypt and the Middle East illustrating the fidelity of the Old Testament narrative.How about you give me some non-christian sources then. Since you the one claiming otherwise.
You seem to have a knack in asking lots of questions and demanding sources when you can provide no sources at all. How about u balance it out ?
1. "Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia"
2. Donovan Courville - christian
3. Again, how can you keep sourcing christian sources. Which Uni are you from???
4. I have already told you there isnt any extra-biblical evidence that amalek existed. But lets say we try to trust what the bible says. But shouldnt you as an Objective Uni person also explore and discuss other perspectives Example : Amalek never existed because it is only mentioned in a religious books (then quote examples to support) OR Amalek existed but bible could be a one-sided account (quote examples to support)
Shldnt we try to explore all other perspectives?
-
Fact is, we are not going to be certain. At least not with our current understanding adn technology. We are slowly... painfully getting there, hopefully. At least we got hardworking people proving and disproving it.
So unless either of us are masters in that field, the existence or non-existence of such a tribe is up to them to decide. And up to ME and YOU whether to believe or not to believe.
If you do not believe, you do not believe the Bible is true, you do not believe there is a God or supreme entity, please. The door is there. It takes as much self-discipline to stop yourself from posting in Eternal Hope.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. "Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia"
2. Donovan Courville - christian
3. Again, how can you keep sourcing christian sources. Which Uni are you from???
4. I have already told you there isnt any extra-biblical evidence that amalek existed. But lets say we try to trust what the bible says. But shouldnt you as an Objective Uni person also explore and discuss other perspectives Example : Amalek never existed because it is only mentioned in a religious books (then quote examples to support) OR Amalek existed but bible could be a one-sided account (quote examples to support)
Shldnt we try to explore all other perspectives?
Like I said.. SHOW ME. SHOW ME OTHERWISE. SHOW ME WHERE THERE IS WRITTEN PROOF THAT SUCH TRIBES NEVER EXISTED. SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
-
Oh.. so now u say there is no extra-biblical evidence.
So whats up now ?
So where do we go from here.
Are u going to agree in disagreeing. Or are we gonna slug it out for many more days to come.
-
Just because Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia DOES NOT MEAN HE IS WRONG.
Until then, what happened to all that OBJECTIVE outlook ?
Remember Dan Shechtman who was rejected by mainstream scientists for decades on "quasicrystals" ? Guess what.. He won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
-
I am at least able to accept possibilities. While you seem so sure that they do no exist. Who is the one being objective and who is not ?
Come on man. Seriously. Just agree in disagreeing.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Just because Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia DOES NOT MEAN HE IS WRONG.
Until then, what happened to all that OBJECTIVE outlook ?
Remember Dan Shechtman who was rejected by mainstream scientists for decades on "quasicrystals" ? Guess what.. He won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
Wow I am surprised you know the story about this professor who was ridiculed by his peers for his work on quasicrystals. yes he won this year nobel prize for chemistry. but then his theory and experiments are real and proven to be true.
if you can come out with a theory and equation and experiements that god exists and convince the physicists god exists, I have no issue with that. if you can do that, I am sure you will win next year Nobel Prize in Physics
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
Wow I am surprised you know the story about this professor who was ridiculed by his peers for his work on quasicrystals. yes he won this year nobel prize for chemistry. but then his theory and experiments are real and proven to be true.
if you can come out with a theory and equation and experiements that god exists and convince the physicists god exists, I have no issue with that. if you can do that, I am sure you will win next year Nobel Prize in Physics
There's someone here WOO don't seem to know what the scientific method is and its limitations!
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
Wow I am surprised you know the story about this professor who was ridiculed by his peers for his work on quasicrystals. yes he won this year nobel prize for chemistry. but then his theory and experiments are real and proven to be true.
if you can come out with a theory and equation and experiements that god exists and convince the physicists god exists, I have no issue with that. if you can do that, I am sure you will win next year Nobel Prize in Physics
Well, what do u know about Archeology and perhaps history ? At least we got these people attempting to explain away using scientific analysis. Just like scientific theories just because they were inaccurate does not mean they are totally wrong and un-usabl and thus have no utility value.
That is all I am saying.
You see any articles or journals suggesting the Amalekites does not exist and that they used scientific analysis to come to that conclusion ? Or is it just ramblings in blogs about it being a myth and supported by conspiracies and hearsays.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, what do u know about Archeology and perhaps history ? At least we got these people attempting to explain away using scientific analysis. Just like scientific theories just because they were inaccurate does not mean they are totally wrong and un-usabl and thus have no utility value.
That is all I am saying.
You see any articles or journals suggesting the Amalekites does not exist and that they used scientific analysis to come to that conclusion ? Or is it just ramblings in blogs about it being a myth and supported by conspiracies and hearsays.
my qns is still unanswered. can you or anyone come up with a theory, equation and experiments that god exists. if it is concurred by the physicists, the world will accept that god exists. Warped theories on god existence is just not good enough. you have to come out with a theory that is supported by an equation, cos equation is the language of physics. I would very much like to see this in journals.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Like I said.. SHOW ME. SHOW ME OTHERWISE. SHOW ME WHERE THERE IS WRITTEN PROOF THAT SUCH TRIBES NEVER EXISTED. SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Hahahahahahaha.
You are like BIC, asking people to prove what you claimed.
You claim Amalek exist, you should prove it. You shouldnt go around asking people to prove that "somethign doesnt exist".
You shouldnt ask people to go around proving a "negative".
Do you know it sounds as ridiculous as asking you to prove to me that elves dont exist beyond our universe?\
Seriously , if you dont even know what proving is or how proving works, you definitely were/are not in any Uni.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
my qns is still unanswered. can you or anyone come up with a theory, equation and experiments that god exists. if it is concurred by the physicists, the world will accept that god exists. Warped theories on god existence is just not good enough. you have to come out with a theory that is supported by an equation, cos equation is the language of physics. I would very much like to see this in journals.
Well, you can equally come up with one that says otherwise right ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I am at least able to accept possibilities. While you seem so sure that they do no exist. Who is the one being objective and who is not ?
Come on man. Seriously. Just agree in disagreeing.
No no.
I think you seletively read or are just lazy?
I said "But lets say we try to trust what the bible says. But shouldnt you as an Objective Uni person also explore and discuss other perspectives Example : Amalek never existed because it is only mentioned in a religious books (then quote examples to support) OR Amalek existed but bible could be a one-sided account (quote examples to support)"
Which part of what I said shows that I insist that Amalek doesnt exist?
Lol..
Are you on a monlogue or are you not reading what I write?
All along, my stand is - lets explore all possibilities
1) Amalek existed and was the bad guy
2) Amalek existed and was the good guy, Israel was the badd guy
3) Amalek never existed because it only exists in the bible
4) Amalek existed but only recorded in the bible
Well, as long as you are open to other possibilities I stated above, then I am ok with you!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Hahahahahahaha.
You are like BIC, asking people to prove what you claimed.
You claim Amalek exist, you should prove it. You shouldnt go around asking people to prove that "somethign doesnt exist".
You shouldnt ask people to go around proving a "negative".
Do you know it sounds as ridiculous as asking you to prove to me that elves dont exist beyond our universe?
I proved it to you already that at least there are journals and articles attempting using scientific analysis to identify archeological and historical entities in that area during that time.
Its up to you to believe. At least I believe in the possibilities that such tribes exist given proper scientific analysis trying to detail the accounts of that period.
I am not trying to have u prove a negative. You just refuse to accept the possibilities.
While I already accept that there may be possibilities that such tribes does not exist, but until I have seen any article, any kind of writing or works by any other people attempting to prove otherwise, sorry, I am more inclined to believe that such tribes exist.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I proved it to you already that at least there are journals and articles attempting using scientific analysis to identify archeological and historical entities in that area during that time.
Its up to you to believe. At least I believe in the possibilities that such tribes exist given proper scientific analysis trying to detail the accounts of that period.
I am not trying to have u prove a negative. You just refuse to accept the possibilities.
While I already accept that there may be possibilities that such tribes does not exist, but until I have seen any article, any kind of writing or works by any other people attempting to prove otherwise, sorry, I am more inclined to believe that such tribes exist.
BM,
No I was responding to you saying "HOW ME. SHOW ME OTHERWISE. SHOW ME WHERE THERE IS WRITTEN PROOF THAT SUCH TRIBES NEVER EXISTED. SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE."
You were telling me to prove a negative.
No one tells people to go prove a negative.
Can I tell you to go prove that ELVES NEVER EXISTED?
And again all your sources are christian.
Confirmation bias is at work!
You fail at -
1. Sourcing
2. Proving method
Tell me which Uni you from? Theology college is it?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
No no.
I think you seletively read or are just lazy?
I said "But lets say we try to trust what the bible says. But shouldnt you as an Objective Uni person also explore and discuss other perspectives Example : Amalek never existed because it is only mentioned in a religious books (then quote examples to support) OR Amalek existed but bible could be a one-sided account (quote examples to support)"
Which part of what I said shows that I insist that Amalek doesnt exist?
Lol..
Are you on a monlogue or are you not reading what I write?
All along, my stand is - lets explore all possibilities
1) Amalek existed and was the bad guy
2) Amalek existed and was the good guy, Israel was the badd guy
3) Amalek never existed because it only exists in the bible
4) Amalek existed but only recorded in the bible
Well, as long as you are open to other possibilities I stated above, then I am ok with you!
Well, like I said, then show me otherwise. At least I attempted to show you that they exist with refernce to authors that have used scientific analysis.
What more do u want ?
So even if we explored your possibilities already, what are u trying to say ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, you can equally come up with one that says otherwise right ?
so it wont be in the journals. the onus is on you not me isnt it. so if you cant, then sadly it wont be in the journals and we will still be debating if god exists. if you can do that, then kudos to you. I also want to put this question to bed once and for all. so the debate continues..................until someone can put out the equation and proven to be right by physicists.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM,
No I was responding to you saying "HOW ME. SHOW ME OTHERWISE. SHOW ME WHERE THERE IS WRITTEN PROOF THAT SUCH TRIBES NEVER EXISTED. SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE."
You were telling me to prove a negative.
No one tells people to go prove a negative.
Can I tell you to go prove that ELVES NEVER EXISTED?
And again all your sources are christian.
Confirmation bias is at work!
Well, like I said, then show me otherwise. At least I attempted to show you that they exist with refernce to authors that have used scientific analysis.
What more do u want ?
So even if we explored your possibilities already, what are u trying to say ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, like I said, then show me otherwise. At least I attempted to show you that they exist with refernce to authors that have used scientific analysis.
What more do u want ?
So even if we explored your possibilities already, what are u trying to say ?
Nothing.
As long as you are open to other possibilities, I am glad!
Yup.