How to sound like an idiot

Likewise when Dawkins confidently asserts that no “educated theologian” believes that Adam and Eve, or Noah is history. But I’m educated (two degrees) and I’m a theologian, and I believe they are history. 

Pastor David Robertson

160 thoughts on “How to sound like an idiot

  1. Consider carefully the consequences of not believing the Adam and Eve fairy story. It means the whole Original Sin idea falls away, and therefore no reason exists for the Redemption by Jesus, which is a pretty absurd concept at the best of times. ‘Your ancestors were naughty, and that becomes your fault, so I’m going to get bumped off in a particularly nasty way to make it right for you. Ok, that loads of others are going to suffer the same or worse is of no consequence.’

    Liked by 4 people

    1. When the results from the Human Genome Project were first released and finally put to rest any notion that humans derived from a single breeding pair a la Genesis certain religious authorities, rather than accepting the evidence decided they needed to formulate a response!

      Many of these people will do almost anything it seems rather than acknowledge fact, evidence and truth

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The trouble, too, is that the ‘education’ of the denialists may look impressive, but it is fields where they are totally at sea when it comes to matters of science. ‘Don’t understand it; don’t want to know it.’

        Liked by 1 person

      2. You really need a ‘laugh’ button ark- as if a board of collective groups can determine whether God created man.

        Of course He did- it is men who are willingly dunces or just plain liars.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. CS:

          “it is men who are willingly dunces or just plain liars.”

          I gave you a like for this—very well put, indeed~!


      3. First results seldom finally put to rest any notion, Ark,
        and you’ve forgotten that it’s now been demonstrated a couple of times that this particular question is very much alive.


        1. Only by those who would like to re establish biblical primacy.

          To establish such an outrageous notion, anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists and all manner of related sciences would be directing their research efforts towards finding a fully-formed (modern ) human (and his mate).
          If this were the case one would expect every peer reviewed paper would begin with the introduction:
          ”Once upon a Time ….”, and include references to such gigantic scientific luminaries as Ken Ham, Ken Hovind and somewhere way down the list a passing nod to David Robertson.

          The song, ”I’m dreaming of a white Christmas” comes to mind.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. COL:

      In the light of God’s omniscience the whole thing is absurd. If God knows in advance (and He does) then His foreknowledge makes a complete squelch of any concept of ‘free will’. No?

      It was neither Adam nor Eve that sinned—any guilt lies entirely with the Sadist who set them on a track from which there is and could never have been any possibility of an escape.

      Christians just won’t have it (try it on them, and once the penny drops they go “La la la la laaaa … I can’t hear youuuuuu…”.

      Free Will and God’s omniscience are a contradiction in terms. Any takers? Please?

      I thought not. Wimps.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The biggest miracle of all is that millions do sincerely believe in these completely illogical concepts. If God gave this free will in order to have a bit of excitement in his humdrum existence but then clobbers you for exercising it . . .?


  2. Ark-
    For a short post and paragraph, u should get a lot of press. lol

    However, maybe it would serve your readership well if folks decided for themselves just what exactly defines a ‘theologian.’

    And yes, for the record, I will say theology is the study of God, not the study of the ‘possibility’ of God. This is a paramount point and fundamental when discussing such things. It also includes Holy Writ.

    That said, I would then add that anybody, ANYBODY, who says Mr. Adam and Evee were mere fables, are first misguided, uninformed, or liars, or just the very worst of delusional self made theologians.


      1. Ha! Many a rich man were mistaken for a beggar in rags. It matters not what some think of me, I rather like the backbone and companionship of such as Solomon, Job, and the wise Esther and Mordecai-

        Then there are Christ and Reb Saul/ Paul, who spoke of Adam as surely as the sun exists.


          1. you realize that CS is basically saying he enjoys the company of people who, if they had lived, would have died a few thousand years ago…that’s a wee bit creepy, you think?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. If they did, Christian authorities would likely demand their Pastors and Priests etc be banned from taking it.
            Can’t have a bunch of Captain Sensibles’ in their ranks!

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah ok neil- the books of Chronicles and Kings are ‘made up.’

        Only in your dreams are they made up.
        It must weary you no end to make yourself of such little significance as to rape history of its people.

        Read the construction of Solomon’s temple lately, and how the sound of hammers was not to be heard???? Yeah, pure fiction.


          1. What RIGHT have u Neil, to pretend to assume Joseph, Daniel, Esther, King Darius never lived?

            Who are you to put an eraser to the only reliable history book and origin of man, solely because u do not approve its contents, and specifically what it says: about you?


          2. How to sound like an idiot? Use the same reasoning you do to erase history as you would to dare say the sun did not shine 5,000 years ago.

            After all, you want ‘proof’ right? I swear the atheist mind is missing a few doughnuts from the dozen.


          3. Whoever is making the claims, the burden of proof lies on them. You might believe in all those people, but to most non-Christians it’s fairy tale stuff, like Harry Potter stories. If you believe in all that, that’s fine… but to say someone is pretending to not believe in something, because they don’t believe it like you, is ignorant and dishonest.

            Liked by 3 people

          4. Ignorant and dishonest? Ha! I have heard those charges for 40 years.

            And God’s word was true then, true 40 years before that, 40 years before that, and equally true as to the genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, records which would be help up in any State Office- you know, the Recorder of Deeds.’

            Scripture is the ONLY trustworthy recorded deeds of men, with even more reliability as to WHO created what.

            It’s all the Creator’s domain doncha know, and good people have know this for ages.

            It is you who is the aberration, not submitting to common sense, and substituting your own version of history.

            ‘‘Tis a sad sight to see, watching people erase history, for no other reason than what scripture reveals.

            Sin isn’t pretty. Deal with it.


          5. So you’ve been called ignorant and dishonest for 40 years? that is really saying alot…

            I don’t believe in your scriptures but that was besides my point. You’re saying someone is pretending to not believe, like what are you even basing that claim on? Also touting over and over again that scripture is trustworthy doesn’t change a thing. Enjoy yelling into the wind.

            Liked by 3 people

    1. I suppose one could just about accept that an evangelical might consider Adam and his missus were real, especially if they have no idea what the HGP is, but Noah and his bloody ark?
      What do these people put on the Cornflakes in the morning?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Robertson has a book out called ASK. Questions kids have asked about the bible and related matters.
          He features chapters on his blog. His responses are utterly revolting. Apologetic rubbish to the core, which he is at pains to state is truth.
          He won’t release my comments to him any more and only the occasional one gets through if addressed to another commenter.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Who knows?
            But anyone who claims they consider Adam and Eve and Noah genuine history need to be brought to heel.
            He can’t seriously believe his parishioners in this day and age also consider Noah and his frigging ark is a genuine historical event, surely?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Like a real parish, with a church and parishioners and services? I wouldn’t imagine he’d draw too many Scots, they’re a tad too sensible for his flavour of madness… aren’t they?


  3. There’s education, and there’s education, no? There’s also Knowledge—which sometimes is Reality based and at other times is simply fashion. A case of “Pay your money and take your pick”.

    Can a person with a doctorate of Islam claim to be more educated than one with a doctorate in zoology or modern physics? Both are undoubtedly ‘educated’ …

    Isn’t ‘knowledge’ often a fashion thing anyway, given that ‘knowledge’ keeps changing and yesterday’s ‘fact’ is often today’s Big Giggle? (This is one reason why I loooove ‘flat Earthers’ — they aren’t wrong, they are just a bit behind current thinking.)

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The quote that makes up the post says it all. If education is a tool for earning an income then I would say the person being quoted is using it well. (“Two degrees” … in wot?)

    Is a Doctorate of Divinity worth more than a Noddy book by Enid Blyton? Peter Rabbit? Why?

    I love that human beings can compartmentalise their minds, brilliant!
    Just ‘rationalise’ to fit your theory, anyone can do it—so I ask “Can the Omniscient/Omnipotent get by without asking questions?” — given that right from before He created anything (out of nothing, cute) He already knew all the answers? So why would a timeless omniscient ask questions …

    “Hey You!”
    “Eek! Me?”
    “Yeah, you! Where’s ya brother?”

    And given that even before The Creation He knew that the missing bro was going to be popped off, He still went ahead …

    … so that He could amuse Himself?

    Is this why we have endless wars? For God’s entertainment, with no commercials?
    What the hell does He do with the locals in other universes? Do they all have Jesuses too?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. International Blasphemy Day coming up on the 30th. (I don’t know the rules, dammit … are we all meant to run around yelling “God sucks!”?)

    A reminder just popped up on my screen and I don’t remember setting it. God does indeed work in mystery …

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Maybe you should just agree with David so you too, can sound like an idiot and know what he’s going through. If he’s really an idiot, it’s hard to fault him. I think he’s more like a liar.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Ark, I think this might be worth noting and sharing here about self-acclaimed Pastor WeeFleeFast:

    But I’m educated (two degrees) and I’m a theologian…

    BWHAHAHAHA!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Does this goon not realize that undergrad and/or postgrad degrees are only highly notable credentials IF they are earned from the World’s Top 20 Universities. Though the University of Edinburgh does rank typically in the world’s top 20-30, that ranking is mostly due to its POSTGRAD programs. Rev. David Robertson attained only a B.A. in general History and he DOES NOT willingly or proactively volunteer his GPA for this undergrad degree. For all we know he may have only barely passed or did sufficient, average work with no honors achieved. Furthermore, the University of Edinburgh’s most prolific undergrad programs are in Architecture, Chemical Engineering, Veterinary Medicine, and five other areas/disciplines… NONE of which are History or something close to history.

    This begs the question, WHY would Robertson boast about an undergrad degree with average or below-average merit AND which is not at all related to religious studies? Unless it is to inflate himself on the (generic) coat-tails of UoE’s other programs and well-respected postgrad programs… from which he didn’t graduate?

    Lastly, Edinburgh Theological Seminary—where Robertson attained his M.A. in Theology—is backed/vouched-for by the University of Glasgow, which is NOT ranked in the world’s academic Top 50 institutions according to the 2019 CWTS Leiden (as 60th?) and the 2020 QS World University Ranking. However, what is much more important to understand is just how narrowly niched ETS actually is by comparison to thousands of other Christian seminaries around the world! ETS is strictly Protestant, Presbyterian, Calvinist, Conservative-evangelical according to the Westminster Confession of Faith and their own website. IOW, his “theological degree” represents less than 16% of all Christians around the world! His current little niche of Christianity—“Reformed Neo-Calvinism”—is significantly smaller than 16%, probably less than 10%! It’s very VERY TINY!!!

    Therefore, his proclamation of “I’m educated (two degrees) and I’m a theologian” really carries no weight at all to the question of historicity of the biblical Adam, Eve, or Noah. Self-inflation with no relevance only makes him look psychiatrically desperate (unstable?).

    Liked by 1 person

      1. 🧐😋 Yes I have. Isn’t that what everybody is supposed to do when someone makes outrageous, abnormal, uncontested claims based on unproven, unchecked premises? All of us are supposed to utilize our brains, critical-analysis, test, confirm, retest, reconfirm, and more importantly put the said claims/premises in front of many diverse experts, scholars, researchers to hedge against contaminating bias and corruption? Am I wrong? Am I being being paranoid or am I being wise?

        I learned a long, long time ago that you are a fool if you never look a gift-horse in the mouth… check its teeth, its hooves, ears, etc. IOW, give it a complete physical before you happily (gullibly?) accept it, yes? I mean, has anyone ever heard of the Trojan Horse!? 😉


        1. Yes I have. Isn’t that what everybody is supposed to do when someone makes outrageous, abnormal, uncontested claims based on unproven, unchecked premises?

          Hah! Don’t lay your damn education on me you backsliding sinner.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. 😆 I know, I know… I am incorrigible aren’t I? Your grandma would hiss and spit at me wouldn’t she? 😉

            Btw, I just submitted this comment to WeeFled’s post you linked to. Hope it gets past the Gestapo’s sticky bloody fingers:


            I hope you will allow this comment past your censorship and moderation WeeFled.

            Peer-review by equal or more acclaimed, and more achieved scholars, experts, all utilizing the most advance techniques and analytical equipment is hands down the best method for hedging against corrupting contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and premises. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jennifer Hecht, Lawrence M. Krauss, Michael L. Martin, Julian Baggini, Kai Nielsen, Patricia Churchland, Quentin Smith, Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson, Peter Atkins, Peter Singer, the late Stephen Hawking, and at least 40-50 more honored non-Theists easily qualify for an equitable contribution in critical-analysis of Superstitions or religions. The more diverse in number and viewpoint the better! In fact, if one never incorporates ALL available viewpoints, or very very little—like one person, Dawkins—then they will always be considered as biased, part of a Kangaroo court, judge, and jury. Plain and simple.


          2. Well looky there! Robertson allowed my comment! 😮 Here’s his reply then my response to that… IF he allows it and doesn’t delete it of course:


            From WeeFlee:

            Would you like to tell us when did Dawkins last have a peer reviewed paper published? And when did he ever have a peer reviewed paper in history, theology, philosophy or logic published? The fact that you think Harris, Atkins, Singer, Dawkins etc are ‘diverse’ (all of them being new fundie atheists) is quite amusing…!


            @ WeeFled,

            Well, everyone is entitled to personal opinions such as yours, but the information you ask about is readily available online to anyone as well as via contact with him or the University of Oxford, UK for starters. Nevertheless, I’ll give a brief list here of his citations to his work, academic-journal publications, articles, and published books:

            • Over 45 scholarly citations between 1969-2010 (source can be provided)

            • 18 articles published between 1992-2008 (source can be provided)

            • 34 academic-journal publications between 1968-2004 (source can be provided)

            • At least 16 published books between 1976-2019 (source can be provided)

            • A plethora of awards, honors, and accolades too many to list here, but most notable are ZSL Silver Medal (1989), Michael Faraday Prize (1990), International Cosmos Prize (1997), Nierenberg Prize (2009), and a prestigious Fellowship to the Royal Society (2001) which needs no explanation at all.

            Everything you seek can be found in the above list regarding Dawkin’s peer-reviewed works. Everything. It speaks for itself why he is one of the premier scholars in the world.

            History, theology, philosophy, or logic? This isn’t really relevant to my comment (explained later below) because you haven’t had any publications in microbiology, genetics, astrophysics, or Quantum Mechanics. LOL Neither have I for that matter! But many of us have a basic or novice level education/awareness of those fields. What I think you are confusing (intentionally?) or you’re not clear about is that the most elite peer-reviewed experts, scholars, researchers, etc, in the world come from the world’s most elite, reputable, peer-reviewed Top 10-20 institutions on the globe. All of which have a CV and dossier like Richard Dawkin’s I gave above.

            Now, to reclarify what my initial comment was explicitly saying was in order to guard, hedge against personal or group bias, corruption, and fallacy is to have one’s work peer-reviewed by the most renown experts in the world; the more the better. What it was implicitly saying was your work Mr. Robertson severely LACKS this level of peer-reviewed and diverse critique making your blog and writing here only visited/read by many like-minded, perhaps identically-minded, less achieved Browsers who echo your personal viewpoints. Typically you Moderate, edit, or censor/delete feedback from your opponents and those who challenge your personal postures. Nevertheless, what you missed from my initial comment is that solo, singular authoritarian proclamations within a biased group/populace IS NOT a source of truth, precision, fact, or plausibility. The bigger the review-panel, the more errors, fraud, implausibility, and poor logic is weeded out. That’s the point you missed or avoided.

            I appreciate your compliment about being amused. I find the same comical amusement every time I visit here. It’s a win-win for us, huh?

            Thanks for allowing my initial comment and hopefully this response too. Enjoy the rest of the week Dave. 🙂


            We’ll see if the Grand Poop-pah of Authoritarian Fleas will allow this response. 😉

            Liked by 3 people

          3. Well, I am delightfully surprised. He allowed my 2nd reply and commented…


            From David Robertson/WeeFlee:

            The question I asked was whether Dawkins had done any peer-reviewed work in the past two decades….the answer is no. Which completely negates your point.

            Given that I wasn’t writing about microbiology, genetics, astrophysics or Quantum mechanics I’m not sure why you think I should have peer reviewed articles on them. I was just simply pointing out that Dawkins does not have any knowledge or expertise in the fields he writes about in his latest diatribe – history, philosophy and theology.

            I don’t know of any scholar who would cite Dawkins as one of the premier scholars in the world- in anything other than his specialised field…microbiology.

            I’m somewhat amused that you think that my blog is read only by like minded and ‘less achieved ‘- hows that for snobbery! Given the feedback I get I know many people who read this who don’t agree….and your idea that one’s opinion only counts if it is peer reviewed academic is both elitist and logical nonsense.

            No – I don’t moderate/delete/censor feedback from opponents – I do moderate because I do not want my blog to be taken over by those who demean, mock, abuse and turn every internet forum into a cesspit. I publish plenty views on here which are opposed to mine.

            Where we do agree is in your statement “solo, singular authoritarian proclamations within a biased group/populace IS NOT a source of truth, precision, fact, or plausibility.”. Exactly. That is why Dawkins book is so laughable. If he had had it peer reviewed it would never have been published!


            Wow, this guy really doesn’t have the capacity to read between the lines and interpolate/extrapolate possible FURTHER meanings! Notice his idiotic response here:

            Given that I wasn’t writing about microbiology, genetics, astrophysics or Quantum mechanics I’m not sure why you think I should have peer reviewed articles on them.

            Do I have to use crayons and pop-up pictures for this guy!? (facepalm) Anyway, I replied with this. I doubt he’ll continue our discussion when I have to constantly CORRECT is misguided, wrong understandings of what I wrote!

            To Mr. WeeFled:

            The question I asked was whether Dawkins had done any peer-reviewed work in the past two decades….the answer is no.

            No, on the contrary, all those bullet-points either implicitly or explicitly DO show peer-reviewed discussions and challenges to Dawkin’s work over MORE than 2-decades. Thus, I completely disagree with your interpretation of what I and Dawkins has provided.

            No – I don’t moderate/delete/censor feedback from opponents – I do moderate because I do not want my blog to be taken over by those who demean, mock, abuse and turn every internet forum into a cesspit. I publish plenty views on here which are opposed to mine.

            Well, that is certainly a matter of personal opinion UNLESS you’d like to provide the hard data/statistics showing otherwise? (wink) There are many comments I’ve submitted that you never posted or allowed to continue to its end a counter-view and counter-points.

            Where we do agree is in your statement “solo, singular authoritarian proclamations within a biased group/populace IS NOT a source of truth, precision, fact, or plausibility.”. Exactly. That is why Dawkins book is so laughable. If he had had it peer reviewed it would never have been published!

            Actually in fact, you are mistaken Mr. Robertson. We don’t agree. You feeling laughable about Dawkins’ book is a personal opinion based upon your subjective knowledge and experience on the subject(s). Let’s be fair and accurate about that. And furthermore, some type of human fear of being critiqued or corrected is never a legitimate reason NOT to publish a fine piece of work. You have done the exact same thing with several of your publications. It doesn’t make them universally true or rational. That decision is for your peers, i.e. peers of ALL persuasions, backgrounds, education, and experience.

            Once again, thanks for allowing this 2nd comment-reply and not censoring it! I hope this one gets thru your censorship as well. (wink)

            Have a good weekend Dave.

            Ark, why do you find aliens like this for us to TRY and enlighten? 🤨


          4. In case anyone is still following this, here’s the latest between Robertson and I… UNLESS he Moderates or censors it out…

            The latest from Robertson:

            Again you avoid the question – and since this is becoming boring unless you can answer it your next attempt to avoid the answer will not be published! I didn’t ask if Dawkins was accepted or cited by people who have been peer reviewed. I asked when did he last do a peer reviewed piece of work…and the answer is not for at least 20 years. In fact it was one of his colleagues who put me on to this – pointing out that Dawkins has been doing virtually no science for many years – and certainly no serious peer reviewed work.

            I’m also sure that my views do not represent the majority – although it does depend what views you are referring to! But I have never accepted that truth is determined by majority.

            Your view of history seems somewhat weird. I’m not sure there is a Reformed Protestant New Calvinist view of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Dawkins stated it was Sumerian…it isn’t – it is Akkadian. It appears as though his source was a bizarre website called HIstoryWiz….I have given other examples of his laughable misuse of history – and yet because you like his ideology you defend his ignorance.

            I’ll leave your last comment – where it belongs – in the patronising section. Enjoy your weekend…

            My reply:

            I do appreciate you continuing our disagreements up to this point and hopefully you’ll allow my further comments on Peer-review thru to its completion rather than by your personal boredom. The former would be the more equitable choice.

            Let’s not forget my original statement/comment which is exactly this:

            Peer-review by equal or more acclaimed, and more achieved scholars, experts, all utilizing the most advance techniques and analytical equipment is hands down the best method for hedging against corrupting contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and premises.

            I then listed 13 specific names of notable and renown scientists, some of whom are colleagues of Dawkins, as an example of a Peer-reviewing panel/group. There are probably 40-50 more reputable scientists that could be included—the larger the group, the better and more capable of hedging against corrupting contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and premises. Now, please bear with me here David while I break this down further for you and then at the end I will answer your initial question in as much detail as is possible… and what I HOPE you will allow thru your censoring.

            What can be inferred by my original comment is that with a WIDER Peer-reviewing group of experts and other scholars/experts in the identical field as Dawkins, or whomever, would carry the most weight to the general public with their critical-analysis of a subject/theory published merely by 1-or-more in that specific discipline. In this particular case that would be all other renown Ethologists and/or Evolutionary biologists… OR from very similar disciplines where there is crossover. Because all specializations under today’s science’s umbrella are vast with numerous disciplines/sub-disciplines and have multiple crossovers with each other, it is quite easy to find (or attain) completed Peer-reviews. For starters, I have found these five:

            • Lawrence M. Krauss (as I listed initially) reviewed Dawkins as early as 2011 and has toured with Dawkins in “Something from Nothing” up thru at least 2012.

            • Daniel Dennett (as I also listed initially) reviewed Dawkins as early as 2007 and continues as an ally with Dawkins at least thru Jan. 2019.

            • Michael J. Ryan – University of Texas Austin in Palaeontology began reviewing Dawkins as early as 2005 and has thru at least 2018 with his work: A Taste for the Beautiful: The Evolution of Attraction.

            And just to show my original point of equitable Peer-reviews, here are two scientific opponents of Dawkins’ work in evolution:

            • Michael Behe – Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and grad of U Penn’s Biochemistry program is a critic of Dawkins, last in 2007.

            • Stephen C. Meyer – Physics & Earth-sciences from the Christian-based Whitworth College and doctoral grad in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, England. He last reviewed Dawkins in 2013.

            Now as a sidenote, I know you will probably not be satisfied with these legitimate five experts since I am unable to provide hyper-link references in this quantity. Sorry, that is WordPress’ restrictions or Spamming-measures, not me skirting “recent peer-reviews of Dawkins.” Please keep this in mind David. I have conclusively demonstrated here your misleading erroneous claim that “for the last two decades there’s been no peer-reviews of Dawkins.” As we see here that is simply untrue.

            By contrast however, opines (disguised as “peer-reviews”) opposing these experts (some I’ve listed here), flourish like rabbits everywhere due to the internet and saturation of social-media sites. Conventional laypeople in the public domain without solid foundations in under-grad or post-grad critical-analysis and what exactly Peer-review means and functions, spread faulty, ill-founded paradymes and ideologies as if they are universal truths and widely confirmed. Of course, this is simply NOT globally high-level, high-quality equitable scholarship! THESE are the inferences I alluded to in my original comment here.

            I think this detailed elaboration has now put to bed your obsession with a recent peer-reviewed publication on Dawkins (not really a relevant “tree” as part of the forest here) and there is no mystery whatsoever as to why Dawkins has not done a peer-review on “history, theology, philosophy or logic” as you brought up. He would defer those peer-reviews to more appropriate, better qualified (in those specific fields) experts/scholars, naturally. It’s his choice. That doesn’t mean someone with basic/crude training, education, or experience in those four fields can’t express their personal opinions on/in the field, of course they can! The public domain (e.g. WordPress readers) must recognize the differences between opinion, fact, and degrees of plausibility. Utilizing a LARGE group/panel of highly qualified, highly recognized experts and institutions of research & education—not limited to one tiny sector, but global—from many or all viewpoints hedges against “corrupting contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and/or premises or a small group’s claims and/or theories.” Notice the generic parameters there and what I originally inferred. Perhaps that is what you’ve been confused about in our line of discussion here. This should clear it up conclusively.

            Thanks again for allowing ALL of my comments thru your Moderation. It’s appreciated.

            If there’s one annoying thing Robertson constantly does to challengers is hop around everywhere on various single trees, but doesn’t want to address THE FOREST that is made-up of many trees. Intelligent Homo sapiens CAN/SHOULD be able to SCRUTINIZE and/or ADD appropriate trees to the forest! Correct Ark? 😄

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Geeezzz, can you believe this idiot, Ark!?

            From Robertson:

            You will forgive me but you are just repeating yourself. I asked you to tell me when Dawkins last published a peer-reviewed paper – given that you know what a peer-reviewed paper is your refusal to do so (and instead supplying me with a list of his ‘peers’ who agree with his atheism) speaks volumes.

            You will also note that none of the ones you cite support Dawkins in the areas where I am critiquing him – history, philosophy and theology.

            Of course Krauss and Dennett are going to support Dawkins – they are part of the same fundamentalist atheist club….the self-styled prophets of atheism. Incidentally, I would be wary of citing the abuser Krauss – who has now largely disappeared of the scene.


            I’m drafting my final response to him so I can get off this pointless merry-go-round of idiocy. 😒


          6. Alright, here ya go Ark, if it matters anymore. He might not allow this final comment/retort so I’m putting it here so at least SOMEONE with functioning brains might read it. LOL

            @ Robertson —

            I don’t think you are reading my comments closely enough, perhaps not slowly enough? I’m repeating myself in various ways in order to help you understand a WIDER spectrum of methods to scholarly, expert evaluations and judgement of ONE person’s single piece of work. It must be by MANY reputable, acclaimed scholars, experts, institutions of varied viewpoints around the world, NOT just one or two (biased?) viewpoints of argument or peer-reviewed. Make sense?

            This was your exact first question above:

            Would you like to tell us when did Dawkins last have a peer reviewed paper published?

            Maybe you meant When did Dawkins last have a peer-reviewed paper HE did on someone else in Ethology and Evolutionary Biology? If you meant that, then I misread your ambigious question. If that’s it, then maybe he hasn’t because he is so busy with his Foundation for Reason & Science and his Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science; he doesn’t have nor has he had time to do peer-reviews on others? If that was NOT your meaning, then I have answered this question more than once.

            This was your exact second question above:

            And when did he ever have a peer reviewed paper in history, theology, philosophy or logic published?

            And I answered that several times, but lastly this way:

            …there is no mystery whatsoever as to why Dawkins has not done a peer-review on “history, theology, philosophy or logic” as you brought up. He would defer those peer-reviews to more appropriate, better qualified (in those specific fields) experts/scholars, naturally. It’s his choice.

            In other words, it never should be just Dawkins peer-reviewing someone’s (or an ideology of a group’s) history, theology, philosophy, or logic. It should/must be a wide range of many experts in various fields overlapping and specifically related to history, theology, philosophy, or logic. All are valuable as a whole as well as their independent specialization. This CANNOT BE DONE by one person, or even just 2 or 3. Do you see/understand my overall original point? For example, how many peer-reviews have YOU done David? How many have been done on your specific work by a wide range of scholars and reputable institutions? How many have been done by numerous scholars/experts on your work by many opposing viewpoints to yours? Finally, why should yours be any more “special” or “divine” than any others? As much as you like to go at Dawkins, isn’t it fair that the same can be done on your work, your background, your education? Sure it is because that’s what hedges against corrupting contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and premises as I stated initially.

            Now this really speaks loud volumes when you wrote: “…a list of his ‘peers’ who agree with his atheism“? What!? Did you completely miss this part of my comment?:

            And just to show my original point of equitable Peer-reviews, here are two scientific opponents of Dawkins’ work in evolution:

            • Michael Behe – Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and grad of U Penn’s Biochemistry program is a critic of Dawkins, last in 2007.

            • Stephen C. Meyer – Physics & Earth-sciences from the Christian-based Whitworth College and doctoral grad in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, England. He last reviewed Dawkins in 2013.

            Perhaps you are just way too busy with all your history, philosophy, and theology committments and blog-posts every 2-3 days. I’ll politely give you the benefit of the doubt.

            Nevertheless, now that we are indeed at the end of this merry-go-round, you ultimately keep ignoring (intentionally?) the fact that I listed many more other experts/scholars—my over all umbrella-point—but it WAS NOT exhaustive, of course, merely an introduction and suggestion to you to try and WIDEN your criticisms of other ideologies, religions, non-religions, denominations, etc, et al, that do not align with your own. That’s what equitable scholarship does.

            Have a good next week and thank you again for allowing all these comments thru your heavy Moderating, or censoring, or time-restraints, whichever the reason(s) might be.

            I’m done with him.


          7. I think the thrust of his post is that Dawkins’ latest book contains chapters on subjects he is not an expert on – hence Robertson’s snark about history, philosophy etc.

            It all seems to have arisen from a grad student writing a review of the book where he criticizes Dawkins claims regarding the source of the biblical flood myth.
            Thus Dawkins is now being slated all over Robertson’s post because of an apparent error regarding history.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. That’s interesting. And that’s what happens when an average “expert” in 1, 2, maybe 3 specializations gets peer-reviewed by a WIDE SPECTRUM (wider than Robertson can obviously not imagine) of colleagues, opponents, high-quality reputable institutions of academia, from around the world. The scrutiny can be BRUTAL from all viewpoints! But THAT system is a very excellent mechanism to weed out, hedge against corrupting, contaminating bias by ONE person’s claims and premises… hopefully saving a large number of gullible, naive laypersons from the tragedy of following their Herd-Mob over the cliffs of Gotcha Lazy Sucker. 😉

            Thank you kindly Ark for indulging me with all my rambling and attempting to make Robertson think bigger, think outside his tiny box. ❤


          9. Thankful for indulging the blindness and boredom of the tabster?

            Thankful for watching a person hang himself using his own ignorance?

            Thankful for watching small minds trying to dismiss the LARGE and unimpeachable scriptures?

            To repeat: utter boredom


        2. A little late to this party. From glancing over your comments and Flea’s, it seems your conversation went awry in part because of disagreement/misunderstanding of what Peer-Review is and is NOT.

          Generally, peer review is a BEFORE publication process in which a potential article or book goes through an initial editior (also usually an expert with credentials in the field), then if it gets an initial thumbs up it is sent along to other experts for a second/third/fourth review (usually anonymous reviewers of the unpublished work who are also experts) who then give feedbook on the methods, arguments, conclusion, etc. and this feedback on the quality of the works and its conclusions and methods can affect whether the book or article is published or not. In other words, it performs a gatekeeping function BEFORE publication. In terms of books this is usually restricted to academic presses (Oxford, Columbia, Cambridge, MIT, etc.)

          The reviews you’re describing are “normal” book reviews of a book after it has been published by mainstream popular presses (Bantam and Mariner Books). While mainstream presses have an editorial process, they generally don’t use Peer-Review like I described above in the same way that many University Presses do. A lot of mainstream press nonfiction books get reviews from people who are experts, and this is the type of nonfiction you will typically find in most public libraries and bookstores, but even with these reviews they are NOT considered peer-reviewed works.

          Generally librarians and professors would distinguish between a popular press book on a topic and scholarly peer-reviewed work. So yes, there is some overlap in that you have experts evaluating the quality of the work in both Peer-Review and normal books reviews of nonfiction works, but the big difference is Peer-Review as I described above plays a role in whether the work gets published in the first place and/or major revisions need to occur before it can be published (its performs a gatekeeping function), while book reviews might delve into counter-arguments, flaws, and stengths the goal is to informs readers if they would be interested in the book or if a librarian should purchase it for their collection.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That’s a very good clarification CR. Thank you! Why couldn’t Robertson explain it as eloquently and clear as you have!? Wish you had been able to participate at the time. This articulation would have helped tremendously. Is it safe to assume you’ve been part of an academic-university press peer-review?

            Finally, I understand your/the distinction between academic-university Peer-reviews versus post-publication mainstream reviews—the latter will have a perceived lesser professional, scholarly impact. That said, cannot ALL of the reviews with your clarifications here, be considered valuable in varying degrees? The more the better, forming an accumulative review that does include the former (pre-publication) peer-reviews? IOW, why wouldn’t a broad, equitable database of peer-reviews, critical reviews be useful to any evaluation of a “considered expert,” especially when there have been very few pre-publication Peer-reviews for whatever reason(s)? Or when there has been very few (near none?) pre-publication peer-reviews on one specific piece of work, must that necessarily be perceived that Richard Dawkins work and entire career be tossed out, disregarded completely as Pastor Robertson was arguing?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Had I known then these distinction-details you’ve now made me aware, I may have saved myself and everyone else the headache and lobotomy. 😄 As the popular idiom goes that isn’t about babies and bathwater, Why throw out multiple cases of fine Krug Clos du Mesnil Blanc de Blancs Brut, Champagne 1995 over one single suspicious cork!?

            Liked by 1 person

  8. Educated theologian David Robertson believes Adam/Eve/Noah were all historical figures (from whom, presumably, we’re all descended?) I’ve talked to kids as young as seven or eight at Melbourne Museum who have more commonsense than this.

    I guess theology — at least in Robertson’s case — puts you in the company of schizophrenics, who likewise have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. (If Robertson was institutionalized, he’d be the shaven-haired guy who sidles up to you — all chummy, like — and tries to interest you in the benefits of undergoing a frontal lobotomy).

    I have to come here to gloat, cos’ Robertson won’t let my incredulous comments through moderation.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Ah, welcome to the Robertson’s Bad Boys Club Chris. 😉 Many of us here have been banned/ignored thru his Moderation abyss. His blog-site should be designated as a Dictatorial Police-state where all information is censored, incinerated if it does not pat him on the back and smell rosy to his nostrils. 😛 LOL

      Liked by 2 people

    2. He enjoys the sound of his own voice, Chris and starts to dribble when someone criticizes his worldview.
      It’s why I allow one of his groupies, John Kilkpatrick, free rein over here. This way we all get to read a slightly watered down version of His Master’s Voice.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ah, yes, John Kilpatrick: a man who can make most politicians look pithy, in comparison. JK’s approach to apologetics is to use twelve words — or paragraphs — when one would do.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. That’s their attempt to try and make it sound like, you know, just another religion. They have to relativize everything; try and bring it into their orbit, and fight it on their terms:

            “Ooohhh, evolution(ism) is just another religion, but it can’t compete with the One True Religion to Rule Them All.”

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Actually, Chris,
            the context was my contention that there is no one so bound to the tenets of their religion as the person who thinks he doesn’t have one.


  9. I prefer listening to the doctor of soul. He’s got two degrees in be-bop and a PhD in swing. He’s the master of rhythm; he’s the rock and roll king, yeah.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. How easy to lay a trap, Ark,
    and Dawkins does it so well: anyone putting the lie to his exaggeration — how could he possibly know what every theologian thinks? — is liable to meet the rejoinder that they are obviously not ‘educated’ in any way that matters.
    Sadly, Dawkins couldn’t let it lie there for he felt it necessary to demonstrate that he knows more about the origin of the flood stories than presumably-uneducated theologians. He could have asked in the Common Room; he could have gone to the Library; he could even have cribbed an answer from Wikipedia but instead he seems to have depended on an abandoned(?) website called Historywiz and got his Sumerians mixed up with his Babylonians as a result. Poor Richard.


    1. Hello John Kilpatrick,

      Glad you stopped here to comment. We hope you’ll stay around to answer some questions please. After all, as a witnessing Christian and commissioned by your Lord to go out to the world having full Faith in your God’s and Savior’s protection and defense/testimony as to the salvation and grace of Christ (e.g. Mark 16:15, Col 4:2-6, Matt 5:16, 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Tim 2:15, etc, et al)… thus, you’ll confidently address our questions here, yes? 🙂

      According to the Jewish/Hebrew Tanakh, and more importantly to Second Temple Messianism, the Messiah(s) of Judaism had to fulfill unequivocally SIX (6) requisites from 12 Jewish books regarding Messiahs—primarily Ezekiel, then corroborated by Zephaniah, Isaiah, Micah, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 2 Samuel, Jeremiah, Psalms, Genesis, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Exact chapter and verses can be provided if you like. The detailed requisites since 516 BCE thru 70 CE are as follows:

      1. He must be Jewish. (Deut 17:15, Num 24:17)

      2. A descendant of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) and a direct male descendant of both King David (1 Chron 17:11, Psa 89:29-38, Jer 33:17, 2 Sam 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (1 Chron 22:10, 2 Chron 7:18)

      3. He must amass all the Diaspora and return them to Israel. (Isa 27:12-13, Isa 11:12)

      4. He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

      5. He must usher in global peace. (Isa 2:4, Isa 11:6, Micah 4:3)

      6. He must convince the entire world population to acknowledge and worship one God: Yahweh. (Isa 11:9, Isa 40:5, Zeph 3:9)

      If any Jewish claimant failed to fulfill even one of those requisites, he was NOT a/the Messiah(s). Period, no exceptions. Historical Jesus did fulfill #1, but never fulfilled the remaining five. Regarding his genealogy and #2, Hebrew Scriptures unequivocally states that a Jew’s genealogy and tribal heritage are established exclusively through one’s biological genetic father (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17). Hebrew Scriptures says nothing about anything outside of those parameters, much less exceptions for invisible male sperm from deities. And the Messiah’s maternal line is irrelevant as claimed in Luke.

      Therefore, whether Christians—or Greco-Roman Christologists as they are accurately labeled—argue about their supposed resurrection of Yeshua bar Yosef or not, their 3rd – 4th century Greek Christ is not even an obscure resemblance of Second Temple Judaism’s Messiah(s) as clearly specified in authentic Hebrew Scriptures and proper Jewish exegesis. The Greek Jesus was never even a hint of the foretold Messiah.

      I’m interested in reading your 4th-century CE Hellenistic versions/response of history (and later conflations) as opposed to the bigger, independent and Hebrew verifications of Second Temple Messianism according to actual Tannaitic literature, i.e. the Mishnah, Baraita, Tosefta, and Midrash, that specifically explain Messiahship.


      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think this is what you have expressed a desire to read, Prof.,
        but in any case it is a response to the construction you put on to 2nd Temple Messianism.
        2 Peter 3:1-13

        This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
        But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
        Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

        Looking forward to your questions.


        1. I think this is what you have expressed a desire to read, Prof…

          No, that is incorrect. As I stated in my initial reply-comment to you, this is directly from a large majority of Jewish Rabbinical and historical scholars going back to 516 BCE thru 70 CE from established sources of the actual Tannaitic literature, i.e. the Mishnah, Baraita, Tosefta, and Midrash, all of which specifically explain correct Second Temple Messiahship.

          Do you John K. have any background, experience, and tenor in Jewish Tannaitic literature? If so, please provide that CV and dossier. Thank you.

          As a lesser relevant note, your 2 Peter 3:1-13 quote, is not from a scholarly or Rabbinic source. It is strictly Greco-Roman Gentile as I alluded to above. Please provide a Jewish Tannaitic source which is the most reliable source as to retro-fitted or retro-graded Greek Gentile imaginations inside your 4th-century CE Canonical New Testament. The latter is overly biased.


          Liked by 1 person

          1. My CV, Prof?
            I’m not sure I ought to fall for that one, after all you managed to diss the entire Scottish Higher Education establishment 0n the 25th Sept. and the whole purpose of Ark posting Dawkins’s ridiculous exaggeration is to show that David Robertson is an idiot for thinking that a couple of degrees constitutes an education. Since you’ve said that his claim to be educated is outragous, why should I put up my lesser academic achievements for you to scoff at? (Suffice to say that he must have earned a 1st or a 2.1 in History whereas I scraped a 3rd in Botany/Zoology.)

            That said, I think you’ve bitten off more than you can chew (again) and you don’t actually have any questions to ask about 2nd Temple Messianic expectations.


          2. So it seems safe to conclude you are ashamed to share your CV regarding Jewish Tannaitic literature? Perhaps you don’t have one? Or you know nothing about Second Temple Judaism/Messianism FROM Jewish sources… since Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus) was an ascetic sectarian Jew?

            Honestly, it isn’t that embarrassing to admit you don’t John K. Just admit it. But if you are playing the game of divert and avoid, my question(s) still stand:

            Do you John K. have any background, experience, and tenor in Jewish Tannaitic literature? If so, please provide that CV and dossier. Thank you.

            Or to make it easier for you John K, at least provide some idea, books studied, Jewish scholarly Rabbis you’ve talked to, etc, etc. Please show something that indicates you know a significant amount about Jesus’ full contextual Jewish background. Remember, your God commissions you to always be ready to give “testimony.” 🙂

            Take it away John K! Impress us.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. And that’s your question.
    I am disappointed in you and that is my testimony.


    1. You’re disappointed? What, disappointed to be called out yet again in a public forum for making claims (or counter claims) for which you have no substantive knowledge to support them?I am disappointed on your behalf… not that you don’t know but that you won’t recognize it. Learning only starts when you admit to not knowing… a very difficult admission to get from you… which is why I am disappointed on your behalf. But it looks like I’m going to have to live with this sad state of affairs.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Exactly Tildeb. Why does anyone waste their time with these derisive, unintelligible, undignified dimwits? Notice he didn’t reply directly to me?

        They do play the game of Whack-a-Mole really well, I’ll give ’em that. 🙄 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Answers to the questions you couldn’t ask, Prof.,

    Biblical theology comprises seven stages of Messianic Expectation:
    • Humanity
    • Family
    • Nation
    • Dynasty
    • Recapitulation
    • Advent
    • Eschatology.

    In terms of names, we’re talking about
    • Adam + Noah
    • Abraham + Judah
    • Moses + Balaam
    • David + Solomon
    • Elijah + John the Baptist
    • Peter + Paul
    • Jesus Christ.

    This might be a good time to ask one of those questions, otherwise T.B.C.


  13. Expectation of a human Messiah for all humanity
    The first explicit proclamation of salvation in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:15:-

    I will put enmity between you and the woman, | and between your offspring and her offspring; | he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel

    and so the verse is often distinguished by the Latin tag of proto evangelicum.

    Whether or not Gen. 3:15 was considered to be an explicitly Messianic text in second temple Judaism is something of a moot point. Certainly, the closer we get to the destruction of the temple in AD 70, the more likely it is that Jewish scholars who did not accept Jesus as Messiah would claim that the Jewish nation as a whole would ‘bruise [the Serpent’s (Rome?)] head.’ This can hardly be surprising because those who believed in Jesus before his crucifixion had believed that his task was to redeem Israel — rather than all Mankind — from their oppressors (Rome!). That school-of-Gamaliel trained, ex-Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. the Apostle Paul) was bold enough to allude to Gen. 1:15 in his letter to the Romans — Rom. 16:20a — ‘The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.’
    Somewhat ironically, perhaps the best evidence that Gen. 3:15 was treated as an explicitly Messianic text in the Intertestamental years, is found in the Septuagint [LXX] Greek version. Apparently this is the only case in the translation of the Pentateuch where the ambiguous Hebrew pronoun is not translated according to its nearest antecedent. ‘[H]e shall bruise your head’ is therefore in this context a clear indication that early second temple Judiasm counted Gen. 3:15 as a Messianic text.



      1. Cmon Doug/ be square face honest. NOTHING a believer says gets him off the ‘idiot’ list.

        Oh wait, there is one. Sir Collins and the HGP. After that, he’s an idiot for believing Daniel spent a night in a den of lions- or that Joseph was ‘made dead’ by his brothers.

        See how this works? A believer is not an idiot if he is useful to you.

        And you will hope u do not see the day when Collins apologizes btw, and you will remember my haunting and accurate prediction.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sad as that might appear, Ark,
        justifying my thinking to your worldview was never my intention and your reaction makes me determined to be yet more ‘idiotic’ in your eyes.


        1. Well, JK, you are doing a fine job and at the same providing one or two readers with a few chuckles along the way, so don’t let me stand in your way – ”Carry on Sergeant!”


    1. The first explicit proclamation of salvation in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:15:-

      When you clearly see things that aren’t there, it is time to consult a psychiatrist.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Look back, John,
        unless you’re in too deep there is light at the opening of the rabbit hole.
        Thank you for introducing the work of Erez Ben Yosef to me. I’ve just been reading this — — which provides further archaeological evidence that the authors of the Biblical accounts knew what they were talking about (w.r.t. the ancient existence of a kingdom of Edom; contra Dever et al.)


        1. Who’s questioning the existence of Edom? It’s named in writings from the 19th Dynasty of Egypt, 1300’s BCE. It was around until being sacked by the Babylonians in the 6th Century.

          You do understand what “historical fiction” means, don’t you?

          An example: Tom Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October contains many real places, like Washington and Moscow. The technology in the story is contemporarily accurate. The names of the main characters are also contemporarily accurate. This does not mean Tom Clancy’s The Hunt for Red October is a true story. It’s historical fiction.


          Liked by 1 person

          1. sorry lz/
            The accuracy of your alleged ‘historical fiction,’ as documented by alleged stone age dunces, PROVES to any sane mind, that the scriptural narrative can be trusted, entirely, just as it is written, which means, that the Exodus, Babel, King Darius, Daniel among the lions, the writing on the wall, much to your chagrin, all occurred, and that following the life and times of the Lord Christ is equally trustworthy.

            After all, by Him do all things consist, whether they be seen or unseen, and for His pleasure they ARE, and WERE crated. Hope this helps clear up your delusions.


          2. Liked by 1 person
            ColorStorm 5 Oct 2019 at 22:32 Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            Cmon Doug/ be square face honest. NOTHING a believer says gets him off the ‘idiot’ list.
            Oh wait, there is one. Sir Collins and the HGP. After that, he’s an idiot for believing Daniel spent a night in a den of lions- or that Joseph was ‘made dead’ by his brothers.
            See how this works? A believer is not an idiot if he is useful to you.
            And you will hope u do not see the day when Collins apologizes btw, and you will remember my haunting and accurate prediction.

            Liked by 1 person


          3. Yeah, you’re right. Let’s just ignore the dozens of places that DIDN’T exist in the 14th/13th century, when the story is set, but DID EXIST in the 7th Century, when the story was dreamed up. And let’s ignore the FACT that the Philistines wouldn’t actually put a toe on the Levant until some 300 years AFTER the bible claims they were running around causing problems. And really, let’s just COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that Canaan was under Egyptian military rule at the exact time it’s claimed the 2.5 million arrivals were sacking 32 Canaanite cities.

            Shall I continue?


          4. Sure john. Continue.

            However, I’ll stick with the time tested and historically accurate log recorded by people who actually knew.


          5. You may want to consider johnZ the subtle inference to the ‘misting’ of new plants, similar to the misting that occurs by irrigation tools on golf courses today, which points directly to the Creator’s care of His ‘garden.’

            Since this fine point (seemingly irrelevant in the minds of many) is documented as matter of factly, then the simple account of the genealogies and mans subsequent travels including wars and famine can be equally trusted.

            It’s all good.


          6. That’s nice, whatever it was you were trying to say.

            Now, care to explain why Yhwh (in the 1400’s BCE) warned Moses not to travel up the coast for fear of running into the Philistines when the Philistines wouldn’t actually be on the coast until 1100 BCE?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. So, no? You don’t want to take a stab at explaining that rather striking irregularity?

            Good boy. Just ignore it and everything will be OK.


          8. No amount of affirmation or confirmation will convince you of that which you are willfully blind.

            Gods word is not dependent on the lousy opinions of lying or ill informed ‘scholars.’


          9. Tkx John, but even the wisdom of King Solomon in all his glory would not convince you, so surely your expectations of myself would pale in comparison.

            May I refer you however to the mammoth works of that illustrious Jew, Dr Alfred Edershein, ‘Old Testament Bible history’ and They life and times of Jesus the Messiah,’ which both to this day have not been contradicted.

            Since you enjoy history do mush, especially patriarchal, do consider his opening salvo in introducing his OT work.

            Go ahead and challenge him, and watch the Goliath’s of ignorance fall.


          10. Here’s what archaeologists used to think, John:

            We now know that occupation of Edom did not begin until much later, and even then it was extremely sparse. And the area remained largely nomadic until perhaps the 7th century B.C., when a sort of semi-sedentary “tribal state” finally emerged. … What this means is that there cannot have been a king of Edom to have denied the Israelites access, since Edom did not achieve any kind of statehood until the 7th century B.C. The obvious solution to this dilemma is to suppose that the writers and editors of Numbers (the “j” and “E” schools), which as we have seen was probably composed in the 7th century B. C., naturally “read back” into their story the Edom that they knew from their own day.

            Wm. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites, p28f.

            What “Ancient technology and punctuated change: Detecting the emergence of the Edomite Kingdom in the Southern Levant” shows is that Dever was premature with his ‘historical fiction’ excuse. Since the absence of evidence for a late bronze age kingdom of Edom was a major plank in Dever’s argument, Erez Ben Yoseph’s discovery is probably as important as he says it is. Once again archaeology does not contradict what the Bible actually says.


          11. Not entirely sure you understood the paper, John. Note the dates

            Furthermore, the seamless transition from the Egyptian-controlled industry to the local (Edomite) one around ca. 1140 BCE supports the hypothesis that the tribes of the region were responsible for operating the industry even when it was orchestrated by the Egyptians; it reveals that under the Egyptian auspices the local tribes had a high degree of independence, a situation that constituted a fertile ground for them to emulate Egyptian political practices that would later serve as the basis for the consolidation of their own polity

            the archaeological record has been subjected to conflicting interpretations, even after the publication of the new chronology that clearly demonstrates the flourishing of the region during the 12th– 11th centuries BCE. Here, the striking synchronous agreement between the technology in Timna and Faynan, evident as early as the 11th century BCE suggests that an overarching political body existed in the region already at this time. Further centralization of this political body is evident in the changes observed towards 1000 BCE mentioned above.

            You are aware, aren’t you, that the Exodus is set in the 1400’s?


          12. There are two possible datings, John,
            You believe neither of them so you surely can’t try to hold me to one over the other. As long as I’ve been aware of the divergence, I’ve thought that the later date fits all the facts much better. It would be suspiciously convenient if only one or two things matched up but it happens time after time, as I thought was already established.
            Anyway, the “Ancient technology” paper considers the Kingdom of Edom to have been in existence at the time written about in Numbers. Since Ben-Yosef gives dates for his slagheaps that accord with the later dating of the Exodus we have to conclude that he thinks Numbers is referring to the later time period.


          13. What dates don’t I agree with? The Exodus? I go by the date as specified in the bible, as does every other reputable scholar. Moving it forward, or backwards as some evangelicals try, doesn’t help you out, I’m afraid.

            Now, ignoring the fact that even if (and it is an ‘if’) Edom got its political act together one or two hundred years sooner than previously believed (which is hardly a controversial thing in and of itself), it still does not align with the Exodus narrative… regardless of what fanciful date you want to play with. What it DOES align with is the beginning of the Settlement Period, and is arguably therefore part of the geopolitical consciousness of the proto-Israelites (Canaanite refugees) at *that* time.

            Seriously, if you’re truly interested in proving the Exodus narrative, then there are a boatload-full of very serious HISTORICAL problems you should actually be addressing. For example, the fact that Canaan was under Egyptian military rule at the exact time the bible claims 2.5 million FOREIGNERS were raging across the country, destroying THIRTY-TWO cities. The disparity here between the geopolitical realities of the day and the biblical narrative is something like imagining someone 500 years from today writing a European history where, in the story, tiny Liechtenstein invades AND conquers France in 1942, yet forgets to mention the thirty-two German Wehrmacht divisions stationed in the country.

            Or, if you want to go the other way, it’s something akin to a writer today trying to pen a sweeping geopolitical tale set in 1500 CE Europe yet describing the geopolitical Europe of today (treaties, countries, borders, languages, technology, infrastructure, etc.)


          14. A couple of hundred years makes all the difference, John.
            The traditional dating of the Exodus takes the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 at face value and runs into the problems you mention and a good few more beside. The new dating is worked out from Egyptian chronology because the circumstances that fit the Biblical accounts only lasted for a few years. The difficulty then is to see how 480 years can be extrapolated from the data available. That turns out to be quite simple.
            The fact that 480 = 12 x 40 explains why the number is rounded to 480 rather than 500. As you will recall from the Exodus narrative itself, the 40 year sojourn in the wilderness was the time in which one generation handed over to the next so symbolically twelve generations equals 480 years. Also, the bulk of these years comprise the time of the Judges where there were unprecedented overlaps in the narrative with at least three distinct regions — North, South, and Transjordan — enjoying or enduring circumstances that could vary quite spectacularly from one region to another. So 480 is the figure given because the total number of years, many of which ran concurrently, approximated close to that and probably also because individual genealogical records had twelve generations of names in them.


          15. A couple of hundred years makes all the difference, John.

            LOL! Except for the fact that it’s still 200 years short.


          16. And thanks for your detailed explanation as to how 2.5 million FOREIGNERS rampaging across the military territory of the days unmatched superpower (who also had administrative centers in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She’an, as well as on both sides of the Jordan River) went so swimmingly.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. He continually avoids engaging this aspect. Time after time he will use quite convoluted arguments in an effort to justify a particular timeline as if 2 million escaping slaves would simply be waved through the Sinai without so much as a baggage check.
            ”Have a nice day Mr. Goldfarb. Give my regards to Moses.”
            However, I am somewhat surprised that JK has not admonished you Mister Z on account of the fact that Pharaoh’s army – and thus his military strength – was, by this time , languishing on the bottom of the Red (Reed) Sea. As noted by el supremo archaeologist the late Ron Wyatt.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Thank you for the Bryant G. Wood link, John;
            there’s only one place I feel the need to follow up so I’ve ordered a book he cites three times. I’m suspicious of how he (Wood) doesn’t seem to trust himself to précis what the book says but I don’t think he’s just timewasting. Anyway, I’m not persuaded by his arguments, glad as I am to have read them; the tide is moving in the opposite direction and that wipes out most* of your objections in one fell swoop.

            * But not all, I know. I’ll get back to you about the three issues I can think of: the Philistines; the size of the Exodus; and where the Sea of Reeds is, but I must sleep now.


          19. W.r.t. the Philistines, John,
            the chief source of information about them is the Hebrew Bible. Because of the wars with the Sea-People Philistines in the latter Judges/early Kingdom period, it has often been overlooked that the Gerar Philistines encountered by Abraham were manifestly different people. Those Sea Peoples who stayed — i.e. burned-their-boats invaders rather than hit-and-run raiders — were afterwards known by where they had come to rather than by where they had come from. Moses’ fear of taking the Way of the Philistines is not an anachronistic fear of occupants of Philistia, yet to come; as historians for a brief period have believed. The discovery of a line of Egyptian garrisons along the line of the Way of the Philistines shows that Moses was right to be wary but of the Egyptians rather than of the not-yet-arrived incomers from Kittim [Num. 24:24] who would eventually displace the Egyptians in Gaza.
            Ron Wyatt’s supposed Red Sea crossing site is on the Gulf of Aqaba whereas the Sea of Reeds was on the land bridge between the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean.
            If the ‘fighting strength’ numbers had merely been a matter of a simple head count, then we would not have had the original counters named (presumably they were ‘experts’); the totals of the two countings would not have been so close after ~40 years; there wouldn’t be the simple explanations for the two dramatic changes for Simeon (down) ana Manasseh (up); and the comparisons with the actual campaign fighting figures would be numerical as well as proportional. Add to that the clear correspondances between those numbers, taxation and land allocation and you can see how you would want someone used to balancing aspiration and realism doing the sums and striking a value accordingly. Or maybe you can’t; in either case, choosing an answer because it won’t work is poor methodology and ultimately, fatal polemic.


          20. LOL! Nice copy and paste from Wiki… Pity you didn’t include the next bit… you know, the bit about them actually being recorded in ‘reliefs at the Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu’ after, you know, they had a WAR with Ramses… after which… you know… they invaded the Levant (1100 BCE), which is CLEARLY documented through numerous archeological sources, evident in the transformation of coastal cities which… you know, coincides PRECISELY with the start of the Settlement Period.

            Listen, I’ve had enough of your nonsense. You’re pathetic.

            As I’ve repeated many times: The only area where there is still a live debate regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to concepts of the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth well over two generations ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced in 2014:

            “Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”

            That last line is important: “nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”

            Let that sink in.

            Let that really sink in.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. ”The Hebrew tradition recorded in Genesis 10:14 states that the “Pelishtim” (פלשתים; Standard Hebrew: Pəlištim; Tiberian Hebrew: Pəlištîm) proceeded from the “Patrusim” and the “Casluhim,” who descended from Mizraim (Egypt), son of Ham. The Philistines settled Philistia (פלשת; Standard Hebrew: Pəléšet / Pəlášet; Tiberian Hebrew: Pəléšeṯ / Pəlāšeṯ) along the eastern Mediterranean coast at about the time when the Israelites settled in the Judean highlands. Biblical references to Philistines living in the area before this, at the time of Abraham or Isaac (Gen. 21:32-34), are generally regarded by modern scholars to be anachronisms.”

            Liked by 1 person

          22. Yes, John,
            the Sea People Philistines invaded Philistia during the settlement period. But as I said, the people referred to as Philistines in the Pentateuch are obviously not the same as the Sea People who arrived after the Pentateuch was written.
            Remember that the existence of a kingdom of Edom before the settlement period was also generally regarded by modern scholars to be an anachronism until Erez Ben Yosef found evidence of them. Declaring something to be a dead subject is sometimes considered to be hubristic.


          23. No, they invaded just *before* coastal Canaanites took to the hills. One event *caused* the other. The timing is critical, and your attempt to rewrite history shows just how pointless it is talking to you.

            As already pointed out, your Edom case is still short by over 200 years in relation to Moses, and 800 years short when it comes to the Patriarchs. What you’re ignoring here is the very simple fact that the Pentateuch is a unity tale designed capitalise on a weakened Mamlekhet (Kingdom) Yisra’el after its sacking in 722 BCE. That is why we have Isaac in the north (Israel), Jacob in the south (Edom), and Abraham, the father, right in the middle in Hebron (Judah) uniting them, all. It is not historical, rather allegorical.

            I mean, isn’t it astonishing that a story set between 1700 BCE and 1300 BCE contains mostly only places that did not exist between 1700 BCE and 1300 BCE, but did exist in the 8th/7th Century BCE which was, REMARKABLY, precisely when the priest, Hilkiah, miraculously found the “ancient” books of the Torah (the scroll of the law, the Sefer Torah) hidden in a wall, telling this fantastic tale how his Kingdom, Judah, was in fact the center of the Jewish world.

            And no, John, it is not “obvious.” But by your excuse I see you’re admitting the bible is wrong.

            I think that just about does it.


          24. You said it yourself, John:

            The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest … were dismissed as myth well over two generations ago.

            They were dismissed on two counts: 1). The traditional dating for Exodus and Conquest did not match what was being found in the ground and 2). There seemed to be much that reflected the conditions obtaining in the seventh century when Deuteronomy was supposedly written according to the hypothesis first put forward by de Wette in 1807.
            This ‘dismissal as myth’ has caused the academy to pay little attention to what the Bible actually says. You state that the occupation of the hills took place because the coastal Canaanites were driven out by the Philistines, but the evidence of this high ground settlement has ony been discovered in the last few years; well within your two-generation dismissal-as-myth of the Conquest. As it happens the both Joshua and Judges say that the high ground settlement took place because of the presence of iron chariots on the plains and that would have been given due consideration if it had not been for this dismissal-as-myth consensus. Time for a rethink.


          25. 1) Changing the date doesn’t solve your problems. But nice to see you’re admitting the bible is wrong.

            2) The Settlement Period was first mapped a few decades ago (finding the remains of structures on virgin rock, ie. no earlier occupation). It was but one line of evidence that MATCHED all other lines of evidence.

            It’s myth. It’s a unity tale first heard when Hilkiah miraculously found the “ancient” books of the Torah (the scroll of the law, the Sefer Torah) hidden in a wall, telling this fantastic tale how his Kingdom, Judah, was in fact the center of the Jewish world. There is no historical basis for any of it. In fact, it lifts entire plot lines from older tales. Are you aware of the Babylonian tale of King Sargon of Agade? It predates the Pentateuch by 1,000 years, and begins:

            “My humble mother bore me secretly. She put me in a basket of rushes and sealed me in with asphalt. Then she put me into the river…. The river held me up, and carried me to Akki, the irrigator who drew water from the river for the people. As he dipped his jug into the river, Akki carried me out. He raised me as his own son.”

            Sound familiar?

            Liked by 1 person

          26. So, John,
            The Bible clearly calls two separate groups of people, Philistines; presumably because that’s what they were called. That these two groups occupied the same territory more or less in quick succession gives a simple reason for the confusion. (The confusion also begs the question: why would you make that up?)

            Joshua clearly indicates that the settlements on the high ground were to be preceded by clearing the forest. As you say, when evidence of these settlements was found a few decades ago it ‘matched all other lines of evidence including the text in Joshua which was presumably overlooked because of the regnant dismissal-as-myth programme.

            What started as a sort of academic exercise — the postulation that Deuteronomy had been forged rather than found by Hilkiah — developed into the ebb tide of higher criticism that was still going out when the early Biblical Archaeologists were turning their art into a science. No wonder they ignored what the Bible actually said in their rush to demonstrate that their findings roughly supported the Biblical narrative. This in turn led eventually to the advent of Copenhagen-school minimalism and the Dever/Finklestein reaction to it. In all that time what the Bible actually says has been systematically ignored.

            What you’re doing here is not exactly the same thing; you ‘beef up’ the Hilkiah narrative — of which we have two complementary accounts in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34 — by saying that the discovery was ‘miraculous’ no doubt in order to make it sound ridiculous. In fact hiding the Deuteronomy scroll during the long reign of Manasseh was sensible because Manasseh would indubitably have destroyed it otherwise. The ‘coincidence’ of it being found when funds were released for the renovation of the temple suggests that Hilkiah knew where the scroll was hidden and was persuaded by Josiah’s concern for the temple’s upkeep that he could be trusted with the scroll.

            Sargon 1 predated the Pentateuch by more than a thousand years but his so-called autobioography can only be traced back to the seventh century B.C. which is ironic, don’t you think?



          27. Oh, but it is a miracle that a story explaining exactly how Judah was, in fact, the center of the Jewish world just so happened to be found in a wall at precisely the time when the larger and far, far more powerful Yisra’el (as the name says, worshipped El) was open to a brotherly religious invasion.

            Yhwh is great!

            Liked by 1 person

  14. Expectation of a human Messiah for all humanity(Cont.)

    The anticipation of a human Messiah (Gen. 3:15) is soon backed up with the promise of God himself dwelling in the midst of his people — [Genesis 9:27] —

    May God enlarge Japheth, | and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, | and let Canaan be his servant.

    The idea is never absent from Gen. 9 onwards and by the time we enter the early second temple period, we have a prediction of God himself coming to his temple — itself the successor to the tent/tabernacle described in Exodus — manifested in human form — [Malachi 3:1b] —

    And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.

    It is alleged that the Christian doctrine of Jesus being both human and divine is a fourth century Hellenistic invention but that contention is undermined by the extreme Pharisaic reaction to one aspect of the teaching of Jesus. — [Matthew 12:6-8, 14] —

    “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” … But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

    The experts knew that this was a Messianic claim and they rejected Jesus but not because a human and divine Messiah was unexpected.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s