You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe.
The Naked Emperor Forum
You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe. |
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 16) |
| Author | Comment |
Jimbojsr
Jul 8, 05 - 7:04 AM |
Tekton reply
Hi all, Just a brief post to say that JP Holding of Tektonics.org has posted his reply to Mr. Adkins' reply... if you see what I mean. Gotta say, I agree with JP on most of the things on it; but I'm sure the regular visitors to here will want to have a lok at the discourse between the 2 people and decide for themselves who they find more reasonable. All the best, folks. Jsr |
|
Wayne Adkins
Aug 24th, 2005 - 4:58 PM |
Re: Tekton reply
Here is a sample of Holdings rebuttal. "The genealogy of Matthew covers 1700 years (Luke is longer); the average lifespan of the day was 25-30 years, so if we assume each and every person had a baby on the day of their death, we get a total of 510 people in 1700 years." First off, I only addressed the sections of each geneology between David and Jesus which is only 1000 years. So using the length of the entire geneology is just a bit of sleight of hand that Holding tries to use to pull some kind of answer out of thin air. Second, he claims you can get 510 ancestors in a lineage spanning 1700 years. Do the math. That only works if they each give birth at the age of four. Wow, that is compelling James. With reasoning like that I can see why James is a Christian. I personally hope James sticks with this apologetics gig though. He may someday do as much to make Christians look smart as Pat Robertson has. |
|
JimboJSR
Aug 25th, 2005 - 6:08 AM |
Re: Re: Tekton reply
My goodness, just when I thought you were lost for good... and after 6 weeks, we have a reply!! (although, sadly, it's interspersed with some name calling, and a reference to an irate televangelist for some reason. Well, at least you've not mentioned the facts that he asks for money and uses a pseudonym... that would just be desperate :D) Looks like I'm gonna have to write my own review of this genealogy thing... JPs links (to his and Glenn Miller's sites) are a bit fragmented, and address various different arguments against the genealogies, so perhaps it's worth my while pilfering bits off the pages to provide a cohesive response which is specific to yours. I'll try to get that done in the next coupla days. |
|
Wayne Adkins
Aug 25th, 2005 - 6:47 AM |
Re: Tekton reply
"we have a reply!! (although, sadly, it's interspersed with some name calling" Name calling? Like what? Holdings, James and Christian? Yeah I was real brutal. You know you are almost as bad as Holding is about misdirection and unsupported claims. I posted this sample of Holdings response because it is immediately obvious how inadequate his flippant responses are. What did you do? Respond with a flippant, unsupported claim of your own. You guys are priceless. 
|
|
JimboJSR
Aug 25th, 2005 - 7:20 AM |
Re: Re: Tekton reply
Actually, I was referring to: " Wow, that is compelling James. With reasoning like that I can see why James is a Christian." I would humbly submit that this is less than civil... although maybe "snide" would be more appropriate than "name calling". |
|
Wayne Adkins
Aug 25th, 2005 - 8:11 AM |
Re: Tekton reply
Oh, now you're going to be humble? You set the tone for this entire discussion Jimbo by referring to me in your inital post as the "Nookie Emperor Dude". JPH's initial comments were full of snide remarks and name calling. I have simply responded in kind to your inital tone. Now you want to cry foul because you simply have no argument. Don't dish it out if you are not prepared to take it. Read some of the old posts and responses in this forum. I have been civil to anyone who was civil to me whether they agreed with me or not. But since you wanted to engage in a less civil discussion from the very beginning, don't be such a crybaby now. |
|
JimboJSR
Aug 25th, 2005 - 9:53 AM |
Re: Re: Tekton reply
'You set the tone for this entire discussion Jimbo by referring to me in your inital post as the "Nookie Emperor Dude". ' Man... get a sense of humour! I'm sorry if you found that offensive, but I think you're being way too sensitive about something which wasn't meant to ridicule the fact that you're an atheist. Your comments, on the other hand, are a slight on myself and all christians, which isn't called for. Anyway, you used to be one yourself, so it can happen to the best of us ;) 'JPH's initial comments were full of snide remarks and name calling. ' Yeah, that's a fair point. Mind you, I have, believe it or not, seen him be extremely courteous to quite a number of (learned) skeptics. When he adopts a more biting tone, it tends to be because the person in question hasn't done their homework very well, whereas JPH takes the time to draw on the work of scholars in the respective field. Likewise, a "fundie" christian who never bothers to actually THINK about their faith would do well to stay out JP's way. And lastly, I am actually working on a wee response regarding the genealogies. Having read the dialogue between you and JP, it seems you have been misunderstanding each others' position - and I'd happily point out why I think that if you allow me to present my argument clearly. |
|
JimboJSR
Aug 28th, 2005 - 6:41 AM |
Re: genealogies
Finished! I've gone over the "genealogies" paragraph in you original article, and the subsequent dialogue. It actually seems that both sides have gotten the wrong end of the stick, and have been mistaken in their view of the other side's position. Anyway, I've gone through the specific points you raised, and picked out the bits of the ThinkTank and Tekton articles that apply. At the moment, I'm hosting the file on my own space at http://www.geocities.com/thinkinghub/Genealogiesjsr.htm . Apologies for the shoddy html, I did it in MS Word.  I need to get a copy of Dreamweaver...
|
|
Jim Means
Sep 2nd, 2005 - 5:14 PM |
Re: Re: genealogies
Hey Jimbo! You've done some good research but did you proofread your first point. Fourteen from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the Exile, and fourteen from the Exile to Jesus adds up to 42 all right but only 28 of them are in the thousand years from David to Jesus fitting perfectly in a 25 to 30 year age at the birth of a son. You don't have to squeeze 42 into the thousand years. |
|
JimboJSR
Sep 3rd, 2005 - 2:18 AM |
Re: Re: Re: genealogies
D'oh! I'm forgetting that we're only talking about David > Joseph. Well spotted - I'll have a read through and check that there aren't any other bits that need "tweaking", so as not to confuse folks. Thanks! |
|
Jim Means
Sep 3rd, 2005 - 6:23 AM |
Re: Re: Re: Re: genealogies
Analyse your critics carefully. The 28 generations means an average age at fatherhood of 35 not 25. |
|
Wayne Adkins
Sep 17th, 2005 - 8:21 PM |
Re: Tekton reply
Jim, You should heed your own advice and analyze this critic more carefully too. I pointed out in the section labeled "biblical contradictions" that the span was 35 years if you only used the 28 names listed in Matthews account. I also pointed out the span when using only the 42 names in Lukes account. The problem is that the names don't match and the proposed solution was that Matthew only made a partial list of names and Luke only made a partial list of names. If you combine the lists as this solution suggests, THEN you have a problem with the average span between generations. Additionally, if you say that they are the lineages of two different people, Joseph and Mary, you have two new issues; the fact that two lineages can't converge and seperate as these do and the fact that both Luke and Matthew claim that their lineages belong to Joseph. |
|
Jimbojsr
Sep 19th, 2005 - 7:22 AM |
Oh dear, oh dear...
Hmm, seems we're all getting a touch confused. Jim says: "You don't have to squeeze 42 into the thousand years." Well, you do if you're going by LUKE's account, as Luke has 42 generations, whilst Matthew's has 27. So, as Wayne correctly notes, "...the proposed solution was that Matthew only made a partial list of names and Luke only made a partial list of names. If you combine the lists as this solution suggests, THEN you have a problem with the average span between generations. " Unfortunately, if Wayne had actually read my article, he would know that neither I, nor the 2 internet apologists I'm drawing from, propose such a solution...  Then, Wayne flags up: "the fact that two lineages can't converge and seperate as these do " Do they? Again, the article had a solution for that, and a very obvious one at that. Let's see - if Wayne can actually go to the article (I'll even give him the link - it's at http://www.tektonics.org/af/adkins02.htm )and READ it, and tell me why I don't see the "matching" names as an indication that the 2 genealogies are of the one line (never mind try to counter my point!) I'll give him a coconut, cos it'll be more than he's done so far in this particular discussion...  "...both Luke and Matthew claim that their lineages belong to Joseph" Again, kindly READ the article, and then please come up with an objection which isn't answered. Thankyou, come again  Having said all this, perhaps I should revise the article so that things like the idea of Levirate marriage are covered on that page, rather than making people link to Miller's article to see the details. What do the viewing public think? |
|
Jimbojsr
Sep 19th, 2005 - 7:37 AM |
Actually...
I should also say that I'm as bad as Jim when it comes to numbers. This is the first chance I've had to properly re-read the article, which is why I was a bit slow on noticing that error. |
|
Wayne Adkins
Sep 19th, 2005 - 11:25 AM |
Re: Tekton reply
Jimbo, You seem to be a bit confused as usual. My last post was a response to Jim Means' post, not yours. Yours wasn't really worth responding to as you said nothing new. You simply changed the verbage on the inadequate responses I already addressed on my site. |
|
JimboJSR
Sep 19th, 2005 - 1:36 PM |
Re: Re: Tekton reply
My post was addressed to both of you, and the issues at hand were a result of my article. I honestly can't see how you can claim to have already addressed the articles I've assimilated, seeing as how you've not even mentioned things like Levirate marriage, or the possibility of there being 2 Shealtiels and Zerubbabels, which provide solutions to your 'contradictions'. I have already admitted that perhaps these weren't explored as well as they could have been in my article, and I have already offered to revise the page and clarify these things (rather than leaving it to the reader to go to the original Thinktank or Tekton articles) - and if you want me to do that, then I will. However, I'm beginning to suspect that no answer is going to come, as the past few posts have read something like: Wayne: "The 2 linages must be the same, because they can't converge and separate!" Jimbo: "That's fair enough. I don't think they did." Wayne: "This isn't worth responding to. You're wrong, because they can't converge and separate!"
|
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com