Come Dancing With Dopey Duke - Part 3
Budikka666
that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, so let's dance right
onto the third question:
3. Do these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
"prehistoric" or fictional?
Abram
back to Terah: 70 years
back to Nahor: 29 years
back to Serug: 30 years
back to Reu: 32 years
back to Peleg: 30 years
back tol Eber: 34 years
back to Shelah: 30 years
back to Arpachshad: 35 years
Budikka
Budikka666
Since Dopey Duke has proven himself too chicken to put in an
appearance here (this dance step is known as "The Cold Feet"), let me
answer this one for him and move it on to part 4.
Before we do that, let's remind Dumb-Ass Duke of something I've been
making crystaly clear to him this entire month of December, but on
which his limited brain power cannot seem to get a handle: This is
*entirely*, *solely* and *purely* about what the Bible text (not
commentaries, concordances, glossaries, references etc., etc.)
actually *says*. It has nothing to do with whether the Bible is
scientific , since everyone with half a mind or better knows it isn't.
Neither does it have anything to do with whether any of the Bible
relates to prehistory. This is a claim Dopey Duke frequently makes
when he's backed into a corner, but *never* *once* has he ever offered
a shred of support for that claim. But he can;t use that excuse here
since whether or not it's prehistory is irrelevant to what the Bible
text actually says.
So yes, the Bible does contain detailed genealogies to the extent that
it lists the names of fathers and their sons and the number of years
between them. In the case in point, Genesis 11 is where these details
are given.
For our purposes, this starts in Genesis 11:10 "These are the
generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad
two years after the flood:"
The genealogy goes on as listed above, showing that there are -
according to the Bible's own text) only 10 generations between Noah
and Abram, which actually shows that it's quite meaningless to claim
that everything prior to Abram is prehistory!
Where, exactly, does that "prehistory: begin? Is it between Terah and
Abram? And what does that mean? That Terah wasn't Abram's father?
That there was ten thousands years between Terah and Abram? These are
questions from which Duck-Egg Duke has FLED repeatedly.
Anyway, on to question 4.
4. You love to state that "Genesis 1 - 11" is prehistory even though
you have never been able to support this claim. The question is, do
the above-listed names appear in those chapters?
Budikka
duke
wrote:
Uhhhhh, not a chance. But I see that I destroyed this part 3 comment question
in the intro to part 4.
So let's go back to part 4 which I saved before sending so I an upgrade my
response as presented in part 3.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
Ok, I'm back to part 4 after shoving aside your part 3 post because I had
already destroyed it below. In this part, I categorically established beyond
doubt that these genealogies are prehistory (your prehistoric), and so now we
can drop down to part 4 and see if it lends any backward scrambling to offset
your disastrous failure in part 3. It's a shame you got ahead of yourself and
showed your ass on the prehistory question and jumped to part 4 without even my
comment on part 3. You'll now find a 2nd response to part 4.
Ah, it's clearly a bud the dud moment.
>On Dec 19, 8:28�am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. �he admits
>> that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
>> admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
>> generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
>> purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, �so let's dance right
>> onto the third question:
You've been know to make some pretty silly statements, bud the dud, but that's a
really bad one. It's hard to deny actual words found in scripture.
>> 3. �Do these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
>> continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
>> "prehistoric" or fictional?
Uh, noooo, they are actually prehistoric.
>> Abram
>> back to Terah: �70 years
>> back to Nahor: 29 �years
>> back to Serug: 30 �years
>> back to Reu: � 32 �years
>> back to Peleg: 30 �years
>> back tol Eber: �34 �years
>> back to Shelah: 30 �years
>> back to Arpachshad: 35 years
>Since Dopey Duke has proven himself too chicken to put in an
>appearance here (this dance step is known as "The Cold Feet"), let me
>answer this one for him and move it on to part 4.
Oops, it looks like I destroyed your part 3 as the intro to part 4. I guess
I'll have to go back now and find 3 for a more full destruction.
duke
wrote:
Ok, so here we are back at part 4 after you disastrous part 3. Gee, I just
don't see how you can put up with this constant embarrassment. But...... I'm
not you, so I'll just keep handing your ass to you on a silver platter.
So, without further delay, let's move down to part 4.
Oooooooook, so here we are now back at part 4. Let's see if you ass is still
hanging out, or have you recovered some.
>Anyway, on to question 4.
>4. You love to state that "Genesis 1 - 11" is prehistory even though
>you have never been able to support this claim. The question is, do
>the above-listed names appear in those chapters?
Nope, that will never do it. You are stuck on pushing your errors by denying
that there is historical knowledge to go along with the bible.
Is there something else you can offer?
What you need to do is google "Is Genesis 1-11 historical" and you'll see the
problem with your summary.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:28:14 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. he admits
> >that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
> >admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
> >generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
> >purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, so let's dance right
> >onto the third question:
>
> >3. Do these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
> >continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
> >"prehistoric" or fictional?
> >Abram
> >back to Terah: 70 years
> >back to Nahor: 29 years
> >back to Serug: 30 years
> >back to Reu: 32 years
> >back to Peleg: 30 years
> >back tol Eber: 34 years
> >back to Shelah: 30 years
> >back to Arpachshad: 35 years
>
> Uhhhhh, not a chance. But I see that I destroyed this part 3 comment question
> in the intro to part 4.
You destroyed your Bible? That would be a wise move on your part, but
I doubt it. the fact is that the Bible says *exactly* what I've
maintained that it says. End of story. Now on to part 4.
Budikka
Budikka666
On Dec 20, 8:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> Nope, that will never do it. You are stuck on pushing your errors by denying
> that there is historical knowledge to go along with the bible.
Your cowardly avoidance of answering this question has been noted.
Your LIE on the news groups here has been noted in that you LIE that
I'm "denying that there is historical knowledge to go along with the
bible" whereas I've repeatedly and specifically stated that this issue
is being discussed **REGARDLESS** of whether the Bible is
prehistorical, historical, mythical, scientific or non-scientific.
Anyoen can see this is true by simply looking at this series.
None of this behavior by Dopey Duke is unexpected. At some point he
absolutely *has* to start LYINg because he's Duke.
But Dopey Duke's LIE doesn't change the *fact* that the Bible lists
the generations after Noah together with the ages between those
generations. If he denies this he's a LIAR; if he admits it, he's
conceded my point.
Now on to part 5:
http://tinyurl.com/yet7bpr
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:59:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm back to part 4 after shoving aside your part 3 post because I had
> already destroyed it below. In this part, I categorically established beyond
> doubt that these genealogies are prehistory (your prehistoric), and so now we
> can drop down to part 4 and see if it lends any backward scrambling to offset
> your disastrous failure in part 3. It's a shame you got ahead of yourself and
> showed your ass on the prehistory question and jumped to part 4 without even my
> comment on part 3. You'll now find a 2nd response to part 4.
>
> Ah, it's clearly a bud the dud moment.
>
> >On Dec 19, 8:28 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. he admits
> >> that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
> >> admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
> >> generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
> >> purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, so let's dance right
> >> onto the third question:
>
> You've been know to make some pretty silly statements, bud the dud, but that's a
> really bad one. It's hard to deny actual words found in scripture.
>
> >> 3. Do these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
> >> continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
> >> "prehistoric" or fictional?
>
> Uh, noooo, they are actually prehistoric.
Your prehistory straw man is addressed here:
http://tinyurl.com/yev48wo
Keep running you pathetic piece of Chicken shit.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 8:08嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:59:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I'm back to part 4 after shoving aside your part 3 post because I had
>> already destroyed it below. 嚙瘢n this part, I categorically established beyond
>> doubt that these genealogies are prehistory (your prehistoric), and so now we
>> can drop down to part 4 and see if it lends any backward scrambling to offset
>> your disastrous failure in part 3. 嚙瘢t's a shame you got ahead of yourself and
>> showed your ass on the prehistory question and jumped to part 4 without even my
>> comment on part 3. 嚙磐ou'll now find a 2nd response to part 4.
>>
>> Ah, it's clearly a bud the dud moment.
>>
>> >On Dec 19, 8:28嚙窮m, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. 嚙篁e admits
>> >> that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
>> >> admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
>> >> generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
>> >> purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, 嚙編o let's dance right
>> >> onto the third question:
>>
>> You've been know to make some pretty silly statements, bud the dud, but that's a
>> really bad one. 嚙瘢t's hard to deny actual words found in scripture.
>>
>> >> 3. 嚙瘩o these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
>> >> continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
>> >> "prehistoric" or fictional?
>>
>> Uh, noooo, they are actually prehistoric.
>
>Your prehistory straw man is addressed here:
>http://tinyurl.com/yev48wo
>
>Keep running you pathetic piece of Chicken shit.
Ok, so you can't challenge the fact that Gen 1-11 is pre-history.
duke
wrote:
>alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>On Dec 20, 8:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Nope, that will never do it. You are stuck on pushing your errors by denying
>> that there is historical knowledge to go along with the bible.
>Your cowardly avoidance of answering this question has been noted.
>Your LIE on the news groups here has been noted in that you LIE that
>I'm "denying that there is historical knowledge to go along with the
>bible" whereas I've repeatedly and specifically stated that this issue
>is being discussed **REGARDLESS** of whether the Bible is
>prehistorical, historical, mythical, scientific or non-scientific.
And why would a dumbass like you get away with specifying what I can and can't
use in truth. Are you actually so stupid that you think you can get away with
your double standards? Uh, please don't answer that. We already know the
answer.
>Anyoen can see this is true by simply looking at this series.
>None of this behavior by Dopey Duke is unexpected. At some point he
>absolutely *has* to start LYINg because he's Duke.
Pre-history is pre-history, you big dud. You will not be allowed to use
pre-history as fact when it supports your silliness, but deny pre-history when
it ruins your case.
Your whole case is built on pre-history as fact.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 8:02�ｿｽam, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:28:14 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. �ｿｽhe admits
>> >that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
>> >admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
>> >generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
>> >purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, �ｿｽso let's dance right
>> >onto the third question:
>>
>> >3. �ｿｽDo these genealogies list these nine people from a son of Noah
>> >continuously through to Abram, whom even you admit was not
>> >"prehistoric" or fictional?
>> >Abram
>> >back to Terah: �ｿｽ70 years
>> >back to Nahor: 29 �ｿｽyears
>> >back to Serug: 30 �ｿｽyears
>> >back to Reu: �ｿｽ 32 �ｿｽyears
>> >back to Peleg: 30 �ｿｽyears
>> >back tol Eber: �ｿｽ34 �ｿｽyears
>> >back to Shelah: 30 �ｿｽyears
>> >back to Arpachshad: 35 years
>>
>> Uhhhhh, not a chance. �ｿｽBut I see that I destroyed this part 3 comment question
>> in the intro to part 4. �ｿｽ
>
>You destroyed your Bible? That would be a wise move on your part, but
>I doubt it. the fact is that the Bible says *exactly* what I've
>maintained that it says. End of story. Now on to part 4.
Either way you lie about it, part 3 is answered in my response to part 4.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:59:53 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 8:28�am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Unbelievably, I got two straight answers from Dopey Duke. �he admits
> >> that the Bible lists genealogies from Adam through Jesus, and he
> >> admits that some of the Bible genealogies list years from one
> >> generation's birth until the birth of the next, starting (for our
> >> purposes) with Noah and running through Abram, �so let's dance right
> >> onto the third question:
>
> You've been know to make some pretty silly statements, bud the dud, but
> that's a
> really bad one. It's hard to deny actual words found in scripture.
It is not the actual words but their reflection of actual facts which is
in question.
When Duke has already admitted that in parts of that bible there are
statements which do not exactly reflect reality, that casts doubt on ALL
statements of that bible.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >4. You love to state that "Genesis 1 - 11" is prehistory even though
> >you have never been able to support this claim. The question is, do
> >the above-listed names appear in those chapters?
>
> Nope, that will never do it. You are stuck on pushing your errors by denying
> that there is historical knowledge to go along with the bible.
As soon as Dike, the pike, admits, as he has already done, that there
are parts of the bible which are not accurate descriptions of what
actually occurred, he casts the reliability of entire bible in doubt.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ok, so you can't challenge the fact that Gen 1-11 is pre-history.
So how do we know that the whole bible isn't "pre-history", in the sense
of being unreliable as a record of actuality?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:39:55 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
> >
> >On Dec 20, 8:19 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Nope, that will never do it. You are stuck on pushing your errors
> >> by denying that there is historical knowledge to go along with the
> >> bible.
>
> >Your cowardly avoidance of answering this question has been noted.
>
> >Your LIE on the news groups here has been noted in that you LIE that
> >I'm "denying that there is historical knowledge to go along with the
> >bible" whereas I've repeatedly and specifically stated that this
> >issue is being discussed **REGARDLESS** of whether the Bible is
> >prehistorical, historical, mythical, scientific or non-scientific.
>
> And why would a dumbass like you get away with specifying what I can
> and can't use in truth.
Because dumbasses everywhere seem to have greater respect for actual
truth than you do.
> Are you actually so stupid that you think you can get away
> with your double standards?
Dike, the piker, i the one who is promoting a double standard.
The parts of the bible that Dike does not want to defend are said not to
be representations of actuality whereas other parts that Dike wants to
claim are true he merely claims them true.
So who has double standards?
>
> >Anyoen can see this is true by simply looking at this series. None
> >of this behavior by Dopey Duke is unexpected. At some point he
> >absolutely *has* to start LYINg because he's Duke.
>
> Pre-history is pre-history, you big dud. You will not be allowed to
> use pre-history as fact when it supports your silliness, but deny
> pre-history when it ruins your case.
The fact that part of the bible is admitted to be inaccurate yet another
part of it is claimed to be accurate needs more justification that Dyke
is capable of providing. Or at least more than he has yet been able to
provide.
>
> Your whole case is built on pre-history as fact.
Our "case" is built on your admission that the bible contains errors.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
If the bible contains mutually contradictory statements, as Dyke admits,
how do we know it contains any truths at all?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Uhhhhh, not a chance. �But I see that I destroyed this part 3 comment
> >> question
> >> in the intro to part 4. �
> >
> >You destroyed your Bible? That would be a wise move on your part, but
> >I doubt it. the fact is that the Bible says *exactly* what I've
> >maintained that it says. End of story. Now on to part 4.
>
> Either way you lie about it, part 3 is answered in my response to part 4.
If the bible contains mutually contradictory statements, as Dyke admits,