We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead gaffe by F Till – not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

Goofy’s Gaffe for this week comes of an attempt he made in the Land Promise debate to make land areas in Josh. 10, 11 and 13 overlap. Please note the following:

This thread is specifically about this particular gaffe. Goofy and his fans will undoubtedly try to distract the reader with other issues while never addressing this particular one. Such diversionary tactics should be taken as an admission that the gaffe is admitted to, and that they have no resolution but to cover up for this embarrassing error.

So now to the Gaffe. I initially noted, in reply to a claim that passages in Josh. 10 and 11 were in conflict with Josh. 13

Josh. 10:40-3 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.

Josh. 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

Josh 13:1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

Re Josh. 10:40-43, 11:6-15, and 11:23 versus Joshua 13:1, which says there was "yet very much land to be possessed": In context these refer to the "whole land" of the particular nations being attacked in each section. Josh. 10:40-43 refers only to the land of the specific kings and cities being battled in Josh. 10, whose territory comprised a specific swath of land west of the northern half of the Dead Sea.

Goofy replied that he would show that “the ‘specific kings and cities’ encompassed in the descriptions of Joshua’s victories will show that they were inclusive of all the land promised to the Israelites.” He began:

First, let’s notice that Joshua 10:43 says that Joshua struck “all the land, the hill-country, and the South, and the lowland, and the slopes.” That sounds pretty inclusive, but statements made later in this text claim that “Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen, even to Gibeon” (v:41). Now this gives us some specific locations to use as geographical references. Goshen, of course, could hardly have been the land of Goshen in Egypt, where the Israelites had lived when they were in bondage. The geographical reference points would put this “land of Goshen” somewhere in the hill country of Judah. Kadesh-barnea was one of the stopping points for the Israelites during their 40-year wanderings (Num. 20:14-16; 33:36-37). This was an oasis on the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness, so the passage in Joshua 10 located the southern edge of the Israelite strike against the kings of this area at the northern edge of the Sinai wilderness. The division of the land in Joshua 15 referred to towns in the region of Gaza along “the brook of Egypt” (v:47). The “brook of Egypt” was either a tributary of the Nile or, more likely, the wadi el-‘Arish, a stream that begins in the central Sinai and flows into the Mediterranean Sea south of Gaza. With this information, we can pretty well fix the southern extent of Joshua’s attack claimed in Joshua 10 at the extreme southern end of Judah or probably even into the northern regions of the Sinai wilderness.

With all of this so far we had no disagreement. Here is where Goofy’s Gaffe on Josh. 10 begins:

Joshua 10:41 says that the strike went from Kadesh-barnea “even to Gaza and all the country of Goshen,” so this would take the extent of the claimed attack to the Mediterranean Sea.

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more. Goofy went on:

The same verse says that the strike extended “unto Gibeon,” which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem, so if Joshua had routed all the kings of this region and utterly destroyed all that breathed (v:40), he would have driven out and destroyed the Jebusites, who lived in and around Jerusalem, and this would have happened early in Joshua’s invasion of Canaan, yet texts describing events after this time specifically noted that the Israelites were unable to drive out the Jebusites.

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier. Goofy desperately wishes to erase these five miles in a different direction, as well as disregard any issue of delineating geographical features, which would clearly exclude Jerusalem from the range between Kadesh-Barnea and Gibeon, but that geographical equivocation will not float in this ocean. To this we can add that Goofy has also naively assumed, even if he were correct, that the delineation in Joshua 10 would be a straight line, when it would more likely be drawn, in this era before maps, along natural barriers like rivers, mountains, and wilderness.
Joshua 10 indicates this with respect to Jerusalem: It's king came out to fight with others, and he was captured (10:23, 12:10) and executed. But the city by itself remains conspicuously uncaptured and unattacked, and unaddressed, until Ch. 15.

So Goofy strained for a camel here, but spat out a gnat, with respect to Josh. 10. Now to Josh. 11. Josh. 11:23 also refers to a specific parcel of land, much larger, but not the entirety of the land in the grant. Goofy tried to wind his way out with the following:

Joshua 11:1 When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Achsaph, 2 and to the northern kings who were in the mountains, in the Arabah south of Kinnereth, in the western foothills and in Naphoth Dor on the west; 3 to the Canaanites in the east and west; to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites and Jebusites in the hill country; and to the Hivites below Hermon in the region of Mizpah.
The place names will again give us geographical references to determine what regions were involved in this conflict. Hazor was located about 8 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. The location of Madon hasn’t been determined with certitude, but it is generally thought to be what is now called Qarn Hattin, which is about five miles northwest of Tiberias, which was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Shimron’s location has also not been determined for sure, but when the land was divided among the tribes, Shimron was given to Zebulun, whose tribal land was in the northern region, west of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], between the territory of Asher and Naphtali (Josh. 19:10-16).Achsaph was assigned to Asher (Josh. 19:25), so it too was located in the northern part of the land. The fact that king Jabin sent word “to the northern kings” (v:2) would indicate that all of these places were located in the northern part of the land, so “the Arabah south of Kinnereth [Chinnereth]” was also a northern location adjacent to the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth]. Naphoth Dor Hermon, and Mizpah were also located in this region, so keep these northern locations in mind as I go on through the rest of the passage.

11:4 They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and chariots--a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.5 All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. 6 Yahweh said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time tomorrow I will hand all of them over to Israel, slain. You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots."7 So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of Merom and attacked them,8 and Yahweh gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left. And Joshua did unto them as Yahweh bade him: he hocked their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. The “Waters of Merom” has been identified with Lake Huleh, which was located 10 miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth], although some think that it referred to a stream that ran into the Sea of Galilee. Regardless of what the location was, the battle took place in the northern region of the land after Joshua had allegedly driven out all the kings from Kadesh-Barnea to Gaza and up to Gibeon, at which time he utterly destroyed all that breathed (Josh. 10:40-43).

Thus far none of this is disagreeable. It is here that Goofy tries to fudge his way out of an embarrassing geographical gaffe:

The kings of the north, under the leadership of Jabin, gathered their forces against Joshua to try to defeat him, but after they were defeated at the “Waters of Merom,” the Israelites pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the Valley of Mizpah. Sidon was located in Lebanon, north of Tyre, on the coast of “the Great [Mediterranean} Sea, and Misrephoth Main was located on the Phoenician coast. These locations mean that Joshua 11 claimed that the Israelites had routed their enemies to both the Mediterranean Sea and the northern borders of the land that Yahweh had promised to give them, so this is perhaps why Joshua 11:23 claimed that the Israelites had taken “all the land that [Yahweh] swore to give to their fathers.”

This is false. None of the indicated territory overlaps with that specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. The description does not bring the conquests to the northern borders of the land grant. The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant. The Joshua 11 excursion does not finish the job, and Josh. 11:23 does not say anything about the fathers and what was sworn to them; it says, "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war." Goofy has failed completely to demonstrate overlap with the Joshua 13 lands. He goes on:

But there were fourteen verses between where I left off quoting above to 11:23. Let’s look at what they say. 11:10 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire. 12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded. 13 But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. 14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. 15 As Yahweh commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses. 16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same; 17 Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. 19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle 20 For it was of Yahweh to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as Yahweh commanded Moses 21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

Just look at the catalog of all the place names that this passage says that Joshua conquered and in so doing utterly destroyed their inhabitants and left none to breathe.

We looked at the catalog of place names, and there is no overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Goofy continues:

After routing the northern kings to Lebanon and the Mediterrnean cost, he turned back and took Hazor, burned it, and utterly destroyed the people there, leaving none alive to breathe. As noted above, Hazor was eight miles north of the Sea of Galilee [Chinnereth]. All--not some but all--the cities of all the northern kings he had routed were taken by Joshua (v:12), and the inhabitants of the cities were “utterly destroyed.”

What does the Mediterranean "cost", we wonder? Whatever it costs, nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Hazor is south-southeast of Sidon, in the wrong direction for Goofy's case. He goes on:

[/i]Verse 3 in this context had earlier identified these kings as kings of the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Hivites--six of the seven nations that Yahweh had said the Israelites would utterly destroy (Deut. 7:1-2). Only the Girgashites were missing in this alliance of kings.[/i]

This is very interesting, but nothing here demonstrates any overlap whatsoever with the northern portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13. Goofy again:

Verse 15 says that Joshua “left nothing undone of all that Yahweh commanded Moses,” so quoting again what Yahweh commanded Moses is not necessary, because we have already seen Yahweh’s orders to utterly destroy the seven nations in Canaan. Notice that verse 16 said that Joshua took “all of that land,” of the northern kings, and then said that he also took “the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen.” Remember the land of Goshen? It was the area that Joshua had captured in the south by Gaza before his excursion into the north. The text is now claiming that Joshua routed the kings of six nations in the north, utterly destroyed all the people there, and left none alive to breathe, so now the narrator of this text has taken his readers south again to the land of Goshen and in his summation of conquered territory has thrown in “the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same.” So what else was left to conquer?

What is left to conquer is what is specified in Joshua 13, and Goofy still fails to demonstrate any overlap whatsoever with any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13, which includes non-members of the listed nations such as Philistines, Giblites, and Sidonians. Goofy blatters on:

[Holding] should notice that this description of the routing of kings and the utter destruction of their people extended from the south of Canaan (even Kadesh-barnea in the northern edge of the wilderness of Sinai) to Sidon in Lebanon, including the costal regions of the Levant [Palestine]. To emphasize how thorough the destruction of the nations within these boundaries was, the writer continued to catalog the places that were captured and destroyed. “From mount Halak that goes up to Seir, even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon” was used to describe the scope of the destruction. [Holding] should get a Bible atlas and check the location of the places I have emphasized in bold print.

I have a Bible atlas on CD-ROM, with nice bold print and lots of colors and entries, and it shows no overlap whatsoever with the described territories and any portion of the "not yet taken" land in Joshua 13.

Mount Halak was located in the Negev, in the southernmost region of the territory that later became Judah. Seir was located in Edomite territory (Gen. 14:6; Deut. 2:4-5), so in saying that Joshua took all of the land--and utterly destroyed the people living there--from mount Halak that goes up to Seir, the writer was obviously saying that Joshua took all of the area between those two points, but the conquest and destruction then extended from Seir “even to Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon, which was under mount Hermon. Mount Hermon was in Lebanon, and the melt-off of its snow is the source of the Jordan River, so if Joshua pursued the kings and destroyed their people as far north as Baalgad, which was below mount Hermon, then Joshua had conquered territory as far north as the land promise had stipulated.

False. Joshua did not conquer territory as far north as the land promise had permitted, as Joshua 13 with Genesis 15 indicates.

Verse 21 claims that Joshua drove the “Anakim” [legendary giants] from “all the hill-country of Judah and all the hill-country of Israel,” so when all the geographical locations mentioned in Joshua 11 are analyzed, no other conclusion can be reached except that the narrator was claiming here that Joshua had conquered all the land from the far south of Canaan [Kadesh-barnea and the Negev] to the costal regions of the Mediterranean to the land of Edom on the eastern side of the Jordan to Sidon and the valley of Lebanon in the extreme north.

The description is accurate, but still does not demonstrate any overlap with the land specified as "not yet taken" in Joshua 13. Again: The grant went as far as the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and Josh. 13:5 specifies as yet untaken, "And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baalgad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath." From Baalgad unto the entering of Hamath, and all Lebanon, up to the Euphrates, is a portion of land that is farther north than what Goofy claims is the "northern borders" of the land grant. Goofy later says:

The writer(s) of Joshua were too specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, to give any room to try to wiggle out of admitting that the book of Joshua did at first claim that the Israelites had taken all the land Yahweh had promised them but then later backpedaled and said that some of the land--well, to be exact, “much land”--remained to be taken.

The writer(s) of Joshua were indeed very specific and repetitious in cataloging all of the places that Joshua conquered, whose inhabitants he “utterly destroyed,” leaving none alive to breathe, and it shows, as we have shown, no overlap shown between land taken in Josh. 10-11 and land yet to be taken in Josh. 13. Now again I noted:

What remains to be taken is specified in 13:2-6. The word "land" ('erets) is a common word used over 2500 times in the OT to refer to large parcels of land of varying size with delineations that are specific ("land of Egypt"). In Josh. 10 it is "these kings and their land", i.e., just the land of these kings mentioned previously, which does not encompass all of the grant. In Josh. 11 it is the land of a specifically named set of kings and peoples with their territories, which also does not encompass all of the grant, and is never said to encompass all of the grant.

Goofy replied, with a corncob pipe in his mouth:

Ah, more insights into Hebrew nuances! Whatever nuances [Holding] may think he sees in the Hebrew word ‘erets cannot make this bird fly, because my detailed analysis of Joshua 11 showed that the catalog of conquered places and cities went from the extreme south to the extreme north and from the extreme east to the Mediterranean coast. In listing the “much land” that remained to be conquered, Joshua 13:2 listed “all the regions of the Philistines,” but Gaza was on the Mediterranean coast, right smack in the middle of Philistine territory, and Joshua 10:40-41 claimed that Joshua “smote” all the land of the southern hill-country and lowlands and all of their kings, from Kadesh-barnea and all the country of Goshen, where Gaza was located. Gaza was listed as one of the towns allotted to Judah (Josh. 15:47).

So now Goofy also thinks that overlap can be found in the specific city of Gaza. But he needs to piece things together a little more carefully. Josh. 10:41 first mentions Gaza: "And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." This says only that Joshua smote the kings referenced in Josh. 10 unto Gaza. This does NOT include Gaza itself, and Gaza itself was neither attacked nor captured here. This verse speaks of a geographic range within which Joshua smote the forces in retreat. Gaza is next mentioned in 11:22: "There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained." This specifically lays out three cities, including Gaza, where the Anakim remained, and as yet there is no mention of attack or conquest of the city. Finally indeed there is 15:47 where Gaza is allotted to Judah. To which we say: And this means? It means nothing that helps Goofy. The allotting of Gaza was pre-emptive, but it does not require that the city be conquered before it can be decided which tribe should get it. Does Goofy expect the Israelites to simply wait, for his personal satisfaction, until Gaza was captured before they decided which tribe would get it or that a tribe would get it? That is not required, and Josh. 15:47, because it says nothing about a conquest of Gaza, does not thereby stand against Josh. 13:3, which says it had yet to be taken. The same may be said for Ashdod, which Goofy also brings up.

In conclusion: Goofy stuck his foot in his mouth here big time, vastly underestimating the northern reach and trying a plethora of excuses to include Jerusalem and certain Philistine cities in the specified conquests of Josh. 10-11. This is the most likely reason he has abandoned the Land Promise debate – because in his turn he is coming up shortly on this embarrassing error.

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here
jpholding:


Till

[i]The same verse says that the strike extended 'unto Gibeon,' which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem....

Holding

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier.

Presumably Holding thinks ancient people were too stupid to know how to cross, let alone, dam a river.

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Gibeon is given as 31.50 North and 35.11 E

Jerusalem is given as 31.47 North and 35.13 E


Where does JP (Oh no I've goofed again) Holding
get 35 degrees North for Jerusalem from? Does he think Jerusalem is on the same latitude as Tokyo?


And where does he get a distance from Jerusalem to Gibeon of 14 30 east to 19 degrees East - not a whole time zone , but half way there?

Remind me to post Holding's goof on Errancy.



Gibeon is , as Till, said about 5 miles north of Jerusalem. I admit Till did not give exact compass directions, but Holding spends so much time complaining about fluff, that perhaps Till felt that giving the exact longtitude and latitude (while beyond Holding's capacity to do so), was a bit pernickety.

Remind me to chastise Till for not giving exact compass directions. People flying from Jerusalem to Gibeon, relying on his articles for directions, would be in trouble.

But not as much as pilots relying on Holding's directions, who would be somewhere near Yemen (must check exactly where Holding thinks Israel is)

Today @ 05:57 PM post located here
jpholding:

This is false. If the attack was to Gaza it does not include Gaza, on the sea, which was Philistine territory. But there is more.

I think I understand Holding's English.

If the Americans took the attack to Baghdad, it meant that their attack did not include Baghdad.



Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Jesus meant, of course, that he would go *unto* Jerusalem, but that would not include Jerusalem.

Acts 8:26 'And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.'

Philip realised, of course, that he was not to go into Gaza, but just go unto it, and hang about the outside for a bit.

We now begin a special feature titled unofficially, “Goofy’s Gaffe of the Week” in which we will feature a specific embarrassing, major-bonehead gaffe by F Till – not a typo or some minor concentration error, but a boneheaded, honking huge error that shows a serious lack of relevant study or scholarship. Though the name implies a weekly presentation we may do this biweekly if other projects are pressing. The goal as always is to show that Goofy is not a credible source and should be either ignored or laughed at by informed Christians.

Is THIS in the spirit of TW?

If so, then I am sorely disappointed. I objected strongly to a similar thread when one was launched against Socrates. I simply see no point in creating and naming a thread for the sole purpose of attacking another member with such sarcastic glee.

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here
Woman:
Is THIS in the spirit of TW?

If so, then I am sorely disappointed. I objected strongly to a similar thread when one was launched against Socrates. I simply see no point in creating and naming a thread for the sole purpose of attacking another member with such sarcasrtic glee.

Well said.

When I was in High School, the class below mine spent a highly disproportionate amount of their time making up silly names for each other. I thought it was stupid then and still do, but hey, they were just kids and I'll bet they've grown out of it by now.

Maybe there should be a new logical fallacy, named in Latin of course .... hmmm, how about Nomen Ridiculum, "The notion that addressing one's opponent by a derisive name, particularly if it is a corruption of his real name, invalidates his arguments".

Excuse me Stevie Weevie,

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Is that MODERN Gibeon or ancient Gibeon?

Not that it matters. I note that your best effort is addressing minor details while ignoring the giant gaffes your Master made. Cool.

If the Americans took the attack to Baghdad, it meant that their attack did not include Baghdad.

Gee Stevie, how do you know the prepositions in Hebrew and Greek are the same? Better yet, when do you get "TO" a city, Stevie?

When you arrive where you can see it?

When you arrive at the city limits?

When you get INTO it?

Too bad. That seems to be the best Stevie can do is pick cherries for fun and profit. Try these:

Gen. 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Does this mean Gaza was in Canaan?

Gen. 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

Guess what, Stevie? This refers to a communal meeting IN FRONT OF or next to a city gate, NOT inside it! They'd block the way like Baptists otherwise!

Woman: You've arrived in the middle of a long exchange that goes beyond TWeb. Don't assume too much.

Dear Woman and Alien:

Since, in part, both correspondents are well known personages within their fields and common debate opponents, there is not a problem with this thread which has quite a bit of history behind it. Also JP has been the subject of similar other threads, some of them still existing in this forum on subjects concering his work and alleged mistakes and contradictions, and is the subject of such inquiries in Till's published work so yes that is allowed. There are no restrictions against targeting a particular person's work or methods from debate and discussion. If it degenerates into something against the rules or has outlived its purpose, such thread are moved into the Janitor's Closet, closed, or both which is what happened with the Socrates thread. However, I am going to, in the interest of being proactive, move this one to the Janitor's Closet.

Edit: I cross-posted w/ you Dee - if this is inappropriate, please delete.

So when's the next installment of jp's Vapid Vitrole? I really enjoy such Witless Whines. One can only hope his next collection Childish Chatter has as many Putrid Piles of Poop.

Writing posts full of creative alliteration mixed with sophomoric namecalling is oh so fun.

Dee Dee,

I applaud your decision. And yes, I have noticed that there is a great deal of "baggage" on this site from the past.

Today @ 04:47 PM post located here
Woman:

Dee Dee,

I applaud your decision. And yes, I have noticed that there is a great deal of "baggage" on this site from the past.

Thank you Woman. And it is not just from the past but debates and things published elsewhere... but here is one thing that I have noticed about the Net and forums.... after a few years you discover that it really is a small world after all, and the people that participate a lot run into the same people over and over, both ally and opponent. In fact I received an email from someone telling me they joined because they were my debate opponent about oh, I would say at least three years ago on a forum which was a very heated and intense debate. Now if we ever debate here, though it may not be apparent to all observers, he and I wil have that history already between us. That is really very common on forums. There is a forum right now that I am participating in a small way on in which a conversation is going on with some guys ahbout a history we have that spans years and three forums..... it is the nature of the beast. I do not think there is any more of that here than any other forum that allows strenuous debating.

Today @ 09:29 PM post located here
jpholding:

Excuse me Stevie Weevie,

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Is that MODERN Gibeon or ancient Gibeon?

I'm sure that neither place was near Malta, or Afghanistan or wherever your coordinates were.

Where was ancient Gibeon then? About 5 miles in a northerly direction from Jerusalem?

[i]Today @ 09:29 PM

Gen. 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

Clearly the author means that they were at the gate of the city was, just as 'unto Gaza' means that they were at Gaza.

As for your claim that you were talking about prepositions in Hebrew, well, I , and the rest of the world, only saw English prepositions in your posting.

Woe unto those who think Holding is a great Christian apologist.

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:
Since, in part, both correspondents are well known personages within their fields and common debate opponents, there is not a problem with this thread which has quite a bit of history behind it. Also JP has been the subject of similar other threads, some of them still existing in this forum on subjects concering his work and alleged mistakes and contradictions, and is the subject of such inquiries in Till's published work so yes that is allowed. There are no restrictions against targeting a particular person's work or methods from debate and discussion. If it degenerates into something against the rules or has outlived its purpose, such thread are moved into the Janitor's Closet, closed, or both which is what happened with the Socrates thread. However, I am going to, in the interest of being proactive, move this one to the Janitor's Closet.

Oh yeah, I wasn't actually upset about it, or wishing to suggest that any kind of action should be taken. In fact I get the feeling that both sides enjoy this stuff, whether they are giving or receiving the abuse, maybe like clowns slapping custard pies in each other's faces?

I guess it depends on whether they want anyone to take them seriously or not. I personally switch off when I start to read this kind of thing, but maybe that's just me.

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here
stevencarrwork:

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here
jpholding:


Till

The same verse says that the strike extended 'unto Gibeon,' which was a town located about 5 miles north of Jerusalem....

Holding

This is false. Gibeon is actually approximately five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at 35 degrees, 14'30 east, while Jerusalem itself is at 35 degrees, 19'56 east. The map also shows it separated from Jerusalem by a river, a natural barrier.

Presumably Holding thinks ancient people were too stupid to know how to cross, let alone, dam a river.

http://www.planetware.com/towns/PRISR.HTM

Gibeon is given as 31.50 North and 35.11 E

Jerusalem is given as 31.47 North and 35.13 E


Where does JP (Oh no I've goofed again) Holding
get 35 degrees North for Jerusalem from? Does he think Jerusalem is on the same latitude as Tokyo?

And where does he get a distance from Jerusalem to Gibeon of 14 30 east to 19 degrees East - not a whole time zone , but half way there?

Remind me to post Holding's goof on Errancy.

Maybe we need to start a thread on Carrdork's errors and idiotic misconstruals. "Stevie's Screw-ups", perhaps?

Stevie seems to think that JP was giving two-dimensional coordinates for Jerusalem and Gibeon, assuming that the "35 degrees" in each case was the longitude and that "14'30" east and "19'56 east" the latitude. He completely fails to note that JP has already stated that Gibeon is northwest of Jerusalem, which would be a nonsense if they were both at the same longitude - the one would be directly north of the other. He also seems to think that the apostrophe is the diacritical mark for degrees. He completely fails to realize that JP is giving the longitude for each location only, which were, respectively, 35°14'30 and 35°19'56. JP's point was to demonstrate that Gibeon was west as well as north of Jerusalem.

Thus, JP's coordinates differ from Stevie's by about 3 minutes for Gibeon and six minutes for Jerusalem, a minute being about a mile at that latitude as near as I can figure. Not so far off, depending on the point of measurement.

Today @ 10:20 PM
Alien:

I guess it depends on whether they want anyone to take them seriously or not. I personally switch off when I start to read this kind of thing, but maybe that's just me.

Well, Holding is doing you a favour then, by removing his links to Till's articles, where you can see why Holding is reduced to sniping that Gibeon is slightly more northwest of Jerusalem rather than due north, and quibbling that the land 'unto Gaza', did not include Gaza.

Today @ 09:29 PM
jpholding:
Gen. 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

Does this mean Gaza was in Canaan?

I have no idea. Never studied it.

Was it not?

A quick glance at the web shows

http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/LandandTime.shtml

'The land known as Canaan was situated in the territory of the southern Levant, which today encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon.'

http://www.visit-palestine.com/gaza/gaz-main.htm

'The city was first inhabited by the Canaanites and occupied by Egypt in the 15th century BC. Several hundred years later, Gaza became a chief Philistine city.'

So some people think it was in Canaan at one time. Was there no time in which it was in Canaan?

Was Gaza in Canaan at the time of Genesis 10, which if I remember the Bible correctly, is before the Exodus? Or was it, as you claim, a Philistine city at the time of Genesis 10?

Today @ 10:24 PM
johnransom:

He completely fails to realize that JP is giving the longitude for each location only, which were, respectively, 35°14'30 and 35°19'56. JP's point was to demonstrate that Gibeon was west as well as north of Jerusalem.

Thus, JP's coordinates differ from Stevie's by about 3 minutes for Gibeon and six minutes for Jerusalem, a minute being about a mile at that latitude as near as I can figure. Not so far off, depending on the point of measurement.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

I was confused by JP not using any standard recognised method of giving his coordinates, and made a mistake. Perhaps JP just didn't know how to get the correct punctuation for co-ordinates on his keyboard.

Still, he was a bit out, because , of course, Jerusalem is so big that his giving co-ordinates to the second is meaningless - a second being about 60 yards at that distance.

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospel...jerusalem.html

is a map.

As you can see , Gibeon is at about 11 o'clock to Jerusalem, perhaps 10:30. Not quite due north.

Saying Gibeon is north of Jerusalem (which it is, as you say) is hardly gaffe, even if is slightly more to the Northwest.

Is this quibble really all Holding can dredge up?