Moderator: Moderators
Michael wrote:Peter Henderson wrote:I hope you were able to challange him Michael. Isn't Rosevear a Chemist ?
I'll record it on Sky+ and have a listen.
I wasnt given a fair chance and if I tried he was impervious.
I can't help with that, but there's an interesting article on OT numbers here: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1num95.html It doesn't offer any evidence of misinterpretation, just exaggeration - which appears to have been commonplace in ancient times. IIRC I read somewhere that such numbers were never intended to be taken literally, being just shorthand for "ever so many".jon_12091 wrote:Have you got the full reference as an attempt to track it down just failed. The only Fouts paper I came across in JETS was about continental drift!
that you have shown that your denial of the historicity of Scripture goes way beyond Genesis 1-11.
All in all, I am left wondering whether the editors of a conservative evangelical journal
Krijimbesuesi wrote:I've tried to listen to this programme but the popup window just freezes every time. Anyone else having difficulties? Am I on the wrong version of WMP or something? Or, is there anywhere else it might be heard, or read?
However a search on "Robert Stovold" brought up a CSM report on the debate, by Andrew Sibley, which includes the following:
"Also Michael Roberts criticised the Biblical Exodus account for asserting that 200 million people came out of Egypt. This is classic ‘straw man’ tactics, or perhaps Michael would like to tell us where he got his figure from, or admit that he made a mistake. But in my Bible it says that 600,000 men came out of Egypt (Ex 12:37) along with their wives and children, perhaps a figure of 2 to 3 million people in all."
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmess ... fbf0566834
So I'd like to ask Michael in particular: did you really assert that? If so, I'm afraid that was a blunder. On the Paul Taylor thread you mention that you've since had an email correspondence with David Rosevear. Were you aware of Sibley's report above, and if so, if it was wrong on this point, did you point it out to Rosevear? If you did, I'm surprised it's still up there in the article.
But whichever way it is, the broader point that emerges out of this (in the light of the last few posts on this thread) is that you have shown that your denial of the historicity of Scripture goes way beyond Genesis 1-11. This is significant for anyone who thinks that it can be confined to those initial chapters of the Bible. It also takes you right out of that relatively small domain of Biblical history for which you could claim that your secular academic background gave you a reason to reject it.
All in all, I am left wondering whether the editors of a conservative evangelical journal such as Churchman knew of your general attitude to the historical parts of the Bible when they acepted your article for publication in 1998 - or whether they would have published it had they known.
I undoubtedly take a far more conservative view of the Exodus than Mikey, who probably thinks I am wrong!!!!.
It was a bad slip of the tongue, totally unconscious as at first I said I didnt say it as from numbers it is 2 million. I accept the historicity of Exodus but not the vast numbers which have been considered in many ways. That probably wont appeal to many here or creationists, but my views are the same as many like Polkinghorne or Mcgrath, or even Colin Humphreys in his book The Miracles of Exodus.
I undoubtedly take a far more conservative view of the Exodus than Mikey, who probably thinks I am wrong!!!!.
Peter Henderson wrote:Out of interest, how do you see the parting of the Red Sea ? Can this story be attributed to a geological event and if so what was it ? If it isn't then what are the origins of this story ? Or would you view this a purely supernatural event ? How do you see this Mike ?
Kyuuketsuki wrote:Peter Henderson wrote:Out of interest, how do you see the parting of the Red Sea ? Can this story be attributed to a geological event and if so what was it ? If it isn't then what are the origins of this story ? Or would you view this a purely supernatural event ? How do you see this Mike ?
On a BBC 4 documentary, "10 things you didn't know about ..." (I believe it was the Tsunamis one), Prof. Iain Stewart suggested that the myth might be based on that (a tsunami) because of the way the water draws back so massively then comes in a few minutes later (so allowing the Israelites across and killing the following Pharoah's army)
Kyu
Peter Henderson wrote:I think Iain Stewart is really excellent by the way. He's certainly doing his best to populerise geology. I wonder if he's aware how widespread YECism is and how they are pushing flood geology ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest