You might be referring to jordan maxwell here, who is highlighted in this article and a “credited” source for the film, zeitgeist. It’s ridiculously easy to see that people have been deceived in every conceivable manner by the film zeitgeist, built upon lies and deceptions that have permeated minds everywhere by way of skillful manipulation. (take the opening george carlin routine e.g. in zeitgeist).
Paradigms are incredibly difficult to crack once firmly embedded within a person’s psyche, and those who attempt to make the shift often come under relentless attack, whether through peer pressure, ridicule, or outside agenda driven interests. Sound familiar?
Confusion reigns supreme these days, and it’s the very tool being used to hammer non truth into people’s skulls. It’s a wicked game being played out.. and everyone should take heed of that.

i know where you’re coming from. My question now is where are we going.. before after..

i have more thoughts on what you have said but my mind is weary. heh, for now.

In a debate about a fictitious Jesus how can you possibly call the historical evidence moot, Bill Lyle? To go on and say that no one will ever win the argument, for or against Jesus, only shows you’re not really following the debate.

Was there anything in particular that you disagree with, regarding Zeitgeist Refuted, or will you just be casting aspersions without thought or cause?

Thanks for explaining that, Bill Lyle, because the comment was included in a different paragraph, to the one you say it pertains to, which is otherwise very confusing.

From my human perspective i’d agree entirely that Jesus doesn’t need to be proved for the moral teachings, of the Bible, to remain sound. However we’re approaching 2,000 years of Moral-Relativism and i have to ask, how well has that worked for mankind? Keep in mind that Salvation is not reliant on being good nor doing good, as you’ve recently learned, but hinges entirely on believing in the risen living messiah. Being good is the cart whereas belief is the horse, yes?

You will have heard that the wages of sin is death for which Jesus paid the price before receiving the promise, of life, and it just doesn’t get any more fundamental than that. There can be no separation given the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, Acts 4:11, Matthew 21:42, Psalm 118:22.

Your position that both sides are on shaky ground can only be arrived at if you ignore the goings on in these debates. Not for a moment, Bill Lyle, am i going to consider that you’re ignorant as to the proceedings. Surely you can see that getting source material or referenced scholastic endeavour is nigh on impossible with the anti crowd whereas the Bible thumpers, in this thread, seem to be ready willing and able to make a case for the hope that is in them. You presume that folk leave the debate due to frustration but couldn’t it be because they are losing the argument and can’t bear to examine their paradigm?

By way of example consider Pix’s contribution. We got a couple of lists and i showed one reference that supports the Bible account rather than Pix’s assertion. What i didn’t go into was the half dozen Historians, from those lists, who also support the the historicity of Messiah instead of the Atheist position. Among them; Tacitus, Josephus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr to name the obvious ones. Then there’s the books Pix listed – eg – Bhagavad Gita which says nothing about an immaculate conception nor does it have a death, burial and resurrection account. Thus Pix only lists them in the hope few will fact-check his tripe.

As a final thought i find your assertion that Scripture is the Bible freaks fall back position altogether unfair. In fact Zeitgeist-Refuted is a predominantly scientific rebuttal and very much Bible-lite.

You have a good point, Mayhem, in that the Rebuttal was lighter than most, on the Scriptural side. I have to say, though, that I had to approach the rebuttal with the same skepticism, with which I approach most theological subjects. Much like I pointed out earlier, the producers intended to advance their agenda, much like the producer of Zeitgeist. I have to admit, that I liked the way the Rebuttal tore the Original to shreds. It was interesting, to be sure.
I have difficulty with presentations that are blatantly agenda-driven. Sure, I can learn from them, but it usually takes a few passes, before I can weed out the chaff. I’m planning to re-watch it this evening, once I’ve managed a few hours sleep.

You bring up a question I’ve always forgotten to ask. The “Salvation” that came from the crucifixion: If it was intended to pay the tab for the world’s sins, was there a moratorium on it? Which brings me to my next point…..
Are all non-Christians, no matter how pious and good they are in life, excluded from Heaven? If there is indeed, only one heaven, would a man like Gandhi be sent to hell, by virtue of the simple fact that he was Hindu?

As for Pix’s contribution, all it did, was further my belief in what I stated. Full-on Atheists are just as hardcore in reviling that which they deny the existence of, in the first place; as bible thumpers are, in defending their god. It’s two sides of the same coin: they’re both incapable of even looking at each other, but are still connected. I take just as much issue with Atheists, as I do the thumpers. They’re just coming from opposite directions.

Your final thought may be accurate. However, it’s been my experience that many (not all) thumpers either go straight to the bible, or to other writings which use the bible as a basis; when confronted with a question which challenges the Gospels. I just find that using one source of evidence (or other sources which are based on, and only serve to bolster said source) doesn’t cut it for me. That’s all.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I’m off for the next couple days. You can reach me at the usual haunt. No Looney BIN for this boy, for a couple days. If I don’t get back to you right away, please don’t take offense. I’m tending to a girlfriend with a broken knee. Cheers

Bill Lyle wrote:

“Sorry, Walter. Each side claims to have “bulletproof evidence” for their argument, to which the other will counter with their “bulletproof evidence”.”

Now I wonder whether you’ve read this page very carefully, Bill. Did you see me brandishing evidence anywhere? Hear me promise to brandish any? No. Then why have you just put me on an identical ground with the accusers? You do so amiss. The accusation owes the evidence – the burden of proof. That’s a fact, Jack. It’s a fact in courts of law, and it’s a fact in arenas of debate. The only evidence I ever stand on is the Evidence the accusers seek to discredit. The Evidence cannot be discredited.

“…it always seems to come back to Scripture, which is touted as bulletproof evidence.”

Personally speaking, I believe the Scriptures are bulletproof. However, when I argue with non-believers, I try to remain fully-cognizant of the fact that they are under no obligation to share that view. That’s when archeological records, historical records and science enter into the debate.

forgive my absence, due to events I am currently engaged in, I have been short of time and long in exhaustion.
Bill, your comment fascinated me. In particular – the moot point. In general – an outsider perspective. Now, I do not know your beliefs and I cannot get into your head but I do recognize your approach to this entire matter. As I said, i know where you’re coming from.
I posted the refutation initially as a direct response to another comment.. responding in an obviously snarky manner – a mockery. However, minus the impetus given, I would have posted anyway. The article and inclusion of zeitgeist was ample reason.
You allude to faith sufficing, “The teachings are what matters.” Yes i agree the teachings are what matters, and the statement holds true for all who are firm in their faith. But consider the human condition. Doubt can weaken one’s resolve, especially within those who struggle with challenges to their faith while wrongly reinforcing false perceptions among the nonbelievers.
This is the despicable nature of zeitgeist which, in my opinion, is a deliberate assault and disinformation piece designed to weaken the faithful and provide deceptive confirmation for the non faithful.
This is where the refutation comes in, and flips the equation. The historicity may or may not matter.. those of firm resolve will likely maintain their positions – dismissed by skeptics, accepted as axiomatic by the adherents. But, what i view as crucial rests in disrupting the flow of deceptive information, outright lies, and manipulation of the people. The refutation exposes the falsehoods that many accept as fact, and then base erroneous judgement upon.
More insidious than this, is the practice of weaponizing falsehood to attack truth. That is the “nature of the beast” here.. a conflict built upon lies.
So where is this all leading? Again, as i asked earlier.. “where are we going”.. I see conflict of immense magnitude on the horizon. Will humanity succeed or fail?.. and what exactly defines success or failure? All people must ponder this and prepare.. which leads me to another dynamic, one which is playing out here and now among us, but we can discuss that another time if you wish.

Ok. This is going to take a minute or two:

Walter:
Due to an error in sentence structure, you may have misconstrued where the emphasis on my statement should have been. It should read more like “I’m not saying I believe, but the constant argument over the historical Jesus is an argument that no one will ever win- Sorry, Walter.”
Sorry about the confusion. I have always enjoyed your debating style, and you’re right- If someone chooses to challenge a notion, the burden is on them, to prove their point. As for Scripture being bullet proof, we’ve discussed it before: In my opinion, the bible’s just a book, if one is without faith.

RAIN:
” Yes i agree the teachings are what matters, and the statement holds true for all who are firm in their faith.”
I don’t think that one has to be “of the faith”, for Jesus’ teachings to ring true; at least as it pertains to his moral teachings; much like you don’t have to be a Buddhist to appreciate the teachings of Siddartha Gautama, or the Dalai Lama. Sound moral teachings are self-evident, and do not (in my opinion) require adherence to any religious dogma.
“This is the despicable nature of zeitgeist which, in my opinion, is a deliberate assault and disinformation piece designed to weaken the faithful and provide deceptive confirmation for the non faithful.”
I’m reminded of a movie called Evan Almighty, in which God (played by Morgan Freeman) asks the wife of a man “When you ask for patience, does God just grant you patience, or does he give you the opportunity to be patient?” After watching the Rebuttal, this was all I could ask. I’ll openly admit to falling for Zeitgeist’s “information”, until I spoke with some learned people on this site (of all places). Honestly, I wanted it to be true. I think it’s common for the non-believer to want to have their non-belief justified. That’s the difference between doubters and questioners: Questioners want to know the truth about God, while doubters want to hear that there’s no such thing as God, and that the bible’s a fabrication.
“But, what i view as crucial rests in disrupting the flow of deceptive information, outright lies, and manipulation of the people. The refutation exposes the falsehoods that many accept as fact, and then base erroneous judgement upon.”
Ok, you may have a point, but one must remember that in many ways, the same can be said for religion. It really is a matter of perspective. Those like me (I refer to myself as a Militant Agnostic, and Recovering Catholic) may see Scripture being used as a weapon (Think the Westboro wing-nuts, or many Neo-Nazi “churches”), much like people use the information provided by hardcore Atheists.
Where are we going?
This is a tough one. If I dare make a prediction, I think that there’s going to be a lot of empty churches in the relatively near future. I think that there is going to be an end to our species, and it’s going to have nothing to do with the force responsible for our creation. It just won’t happen in any of our children’s lifetimes. I’ve always been of the mind that if there was, in fact, a god, it abandoned us a long time ago. Even an omnipotent and omnipresent being has a limit to it’s patience. Enough of my misanthropic ramblings.
P.S: Why the hell would a boat need to drivers? Have you ever had someone grab the wheel, while you’re driving?

Mayhem:
Even if I wanted to send my girlfriend to her mother’s place, she’d still be in the building. Besides, I wouldn’t wish my Mother in Law’s presence on my worst enemy.
If you resort to copy/paste, I’ll definitely call you on it. It’s lazy debating, and unbecoming of someone who claims to be a professor of higher learning. As for Gandhi, much like my original post, it’s the legend that matters. He may have had his faults (Penn and Teller do a hilarious bit on Gandhi), but his body of work is what is truly important. When he died, what would have became of him? He was a peace activist, who managed to prevent a civil war by sacrificing in a way that few would. I think that in a just universe, he’d enter Heaven. However, to hear it from many, Gandhi would be sent to Hell, simply because he was a Hindu. It makes no sense.

The only thing I can come up with, is that the Bow is taken by whichever King can make slaves of the other two. The “King of Kings” so to speak.

Bill.. seems like my reply to your other comment ( which I missed earlier) is lost in space but rather than rehashing the whole thing I just want to say that: I am Not a christian, i view this all as an outsider, I agree with some of your points – already expressed in my first reply, (and you actually reiterated), and I know that info and disinfo are a two way street. i’ll repeat what ended the lost comment..

We are not so far apart, really. As said by “Chauncey Gardiner” in “Being There” – “Our chairs are almost touching”.

We may be seated at the same table, but I’m eating from my own plate. haha… later..

RAIN:
If you’d like to contact me:
[email protected]

If I don’t get back to you right away, don’t be all that surprised. I will get back to you, though.
Cheers

Watered down Beefy

Can’t post it all here, there is too much of it. Can’t fit the entire contents of a library in a BIN comment box, you idiot. But as I said before, if it has to do with you there is no point in wasting ones time on stupid people who refuse to look. There are plenty of references, look them up yourself.

Watered down Beefy

No mate, you are an idiot. You think you know more and your opinion has more weight than the most respected specialist scholars and publishers on the subject. Full of denial but with no actual point to make, you resort to school playground name calling. Like you’re ‘not looking’, I’m ‘not biting’. Go play with someone with the same mental age as yourself, kindergarten students.

This issue has NOTHING to do with opinion, madam…

…yours, mine, or ANY scholar or academic.

This is a simple matter of evidence and facts.

Who is the idiot?

Walter, Walter, Walter…

You poor dreadful soul. You know not your own challenge. By your responses, I’m convinced you are even clueless as to the definition of plagiarism. PIX (and others) have shamed you with proof despite your denial! Your retorts are immature and evasive in a miserable attempt to skirt accountability for being proven wrong time and again. The ole’ “Oh yeah, well you’re ugly” trick won’t cut it here. That alone makes you look stupid and easily discredited.

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism

“What is Plagiarism?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another’s work or borrowing someone else’s original ideas. But terms like “copying” and “borrowing” can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to “plagiarize” means
•to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
•to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
•to commit literary theft
•to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).

All of the following are considered plagiarism:
•turning in someone else’s work as your own
•copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
•failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
•giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
•changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
•copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.”

Watered down Beefy

“This is a simple matter of evidence and facts.” Exactly, now prove Jesus existed, you are the claiming he did despite all the evidence to the contrary that he is modeled on the mystery cults, Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, etc.

“Who is the idiot?” The one who refuses to look, you.

Did someone here promise evidence? Did someone here promise to prove something?

Yes.

You did.

Not I.

You can see the numbers atop this page just as I can. You’ve done nothing but paint yourself a liar and a fool. Yet again.

I have nothing more to say to you with respect to this topic. But I will be there to refute you the next time you dare to post the same lies all over this website.

Walter

Millennialism (from millennium, Latin for “thousand years”), or chiliasm in Greek, is a belief held by some Christian denominations that there will be a Golden Age or Paradise on Earth in which “Christ will reign” for 1000 years prior to the final judgment and future eternal state (the “World to Come” of the New Heavens and New Earth). This belief is derived primarily from Revelation 20:1–6. Millennialism is a specific form of millenarianism.

Once Socrates has presented this proof, he is able to lay out his final argument in favor of justice. This argument, based on the myth of Er, appeals to the rewards which the just will receive in the afterlife. According to the myth, a warrior named Er is killed in battle, but does not really die. He is sent to heaven, and made to watch all that happens there so that he can return to earth and report what he saw. He observes an eschatalogical system which rewards virtue, particularly wisdom. For 1000 years, people are either rewarded in heaven or punished in hell for the sins or good deeds of their life.

FINAL JUDGEMENT

They are then brought together in a common area and made to choose their next life, either animal or human. The life that they choose will determine whether they are rewarded or punished in the next cycle. Only those who were philosophical while alive, including Orpheus who chooses to be reborn as a swan, catch on to the trick of how to choose just lives. Everyone else hurtles between happiness and misery with every cycle.

—————————–

They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

That the thousand years of character building in the afterlife before coming to a final judgement given in the book of Revelation is predated by the account of a millennium in the afterlife with a final judgement at the end of it given in Plato’s Republic.

“That the thousand years of character building in the afterlife before coming to a final judgement given in the book of Revelation…”

There is no period of ‘character building’ in the afterlife spoken of in Scripture.

“…is predated by the account of a millennium in the afterlife with a final judgement at the end of it given in Plato’s Republic.”

The first resurrection in Scripture precedes the millennial reign. So too does the first judgment.

There can be no legitimate comparison between the subjects you have raised. You just pointed to an example which includes reincarnation and asked me to find that something in Scripture is based on the idea?

Where you lead, I do not follow. And certainly nothing you are pointing to has any bearing on the above conversation about plagiarism.

WALTER

There is no period of ‘character building’ in the afterlife spoken of in Scripture.

—————–

There isn’t? Oh HELL!

“I think that they were said to have been mistaken about Kris (na) the avatar or incarnatio of the God Vis or Yis (nu) being crucified.”

That is precisely so, only I refuse to call it a mistake. It’s a lie. Higgins did the same thing in his ‘Anacalypsis.’ Blavatsky did it. Hall did it. The Masons do it. The only evidence of Krishna being crucified is late documentation – documentation considerably newer than any portion of New Testament Scripture.

This is the same pattern seen for all other pagan myths about which a charge of biblical plagiarism is leveled – when we look we find that the pagan myths were CHANGED to reflect events recorded in Scripture. All the real evidence bears this out 100 percent of the time.

The plagiarism charge is perhaps THE most devastating (sounding) argument leveled against Scripture and against Scripture believers by dishonest or ill-informed non-believers… and the charge is predicated entirely on lies.

No one can demonstrate otherwise.

Not your best work, NCA, i liked you better when you used to make a little effort

*Ahem*

Mayhem is the person who coined the phrase “lazy copy and paste.”

So what are you running to him for?

Third Eye Blind wrote:

“Just ONE example (among many others) that proves plagiarism of the Bible…”

The Epic of Gilgamesh. A broken record. I say the Scriptures are true. As such, the events described within the written Word actually occurred. Therefore, when the Great Flood is described in both the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Book of Genesis, there is no dilemma and there is nothing to substantiate a charge of plagiarism because both accounts are describing events which actually transpired. The two accounts bear almost no resemblance one to another, with the exception of a world-wide flood and a man who survived it. If the event is real, and real evidence suggests that it is, then your charge of plagiarism is patently false.

“If there were an honest court left in this country, the case would be won and you’d STILL be broke!”

What is this supposed to mean? You are a failure with respect to meeting the requirements of the challenge. You are dishonest as well, and fail to comprehend simple definitions. No court, in any land, would substantiate a charge of plagiarism re Genesis and Gilgamesh.

“SO THERE’S YOU’RE PROOF PUMPKIN! And as far as the $10K you’re offering – well I doubt you have two cents to rub together, so I’m responding merely on principle…”

Liar. If you thought you had anything like real proof of plagiarism, you would be serious about trying to get PAID. The money is yours if you can prove the charge. What you’ve brought to the table is garbage.

A broken record. Arguing with one of you blind enemies of Scripture is arguing with all.

Rain

Do you mean this 2 hour video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hgX6w4U-2o

His opening statement about there being no correlation between ‘son’ and ‘sun’ is incorrect. As is his second claim that Horus was more than one deity, eg is also Set and thus Satan, is total codswallop.

Not a good start. Is the rest of it of the same calibre?

Pix, I think you may be interpreting what is said rather than listening to precisely what is stated.
e.g. the set satan parallel is drawn in zeitgeist, not the refutation. That is what is being pointed out.
maybe wait to view another time?

information given does provide a perspective you may not have considered. This really needs to be listened to with unbiased ears.

alright if that is so, provide me the names of the egyptologists here and i will find a way to forward them and request an explanation or correction for his statement. I would like to know about this as well.

oh, i see that there are egyptologists within your scholar listings… are these the ones you are referring to?
If so, you’ll have to help me out here.. If you are saying that they agree with zeitgeist, in what capacity? Do they agree with the entire premise? do they only agree with certain facts? or were they used for specific references such as supporting artifacts? Did they cooperate directly with the making of the film or were they simply referenced as information provided in other works?

hmm.. Damine, I tried to listen to some but had a difficult time and little patience with her “style” of presentation. Sorry..
Can you sum up in a few words what i should be looking for in her videos? What exactly is your impression?

RAIN “alright if that is so, provide me the names of the egyptologists here …”

Source material and scholars used for Zeitgeist. http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

“Primary Sources, Publications and Scholars Cited in The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook
Contrary to popular misconception, the information in the religion part of the hit internet movie, the first “Zeitgeist” film comes from numerous primary sources, including the following, as well as the works of highly credentialed authorities in the best academic publications, also listed here. It should be noted that this list does not include the multitude of other artifacts and writings from antiquity that may be found in the other works of D.M. Murdock/Acharya S.

Ancient artifacts and archaeological sites

Lascaux, Altamira and Trois Freres cave paintings
Tassili N’Aijer figures
Mohenjo-daro, Indus Valley site
Goseck, Germany
Thirteen Towers, Chankillo, Peru
Nabta Playa, Egypt
Karanovo Tablet
Dendera zodiac and other Egyptian artifacts
Brindisi disk
Greek pottery, paintings, mosaics, temples
Roman mosaics, paintings and statuary
Early Christian artifacts, etc.

Murdock does research in a variety of languages, both modern and ancient, such as: Ancient and modern Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Vedic, Persian, Egyptian, Coptic, French, Italian, Spanish, German and a smattering of other languages as the need arises.

Ancient Writings

Egyptian hymns, hieroglyphs, papyri and carvings
Pyramid Texts
Coffin Texts
Book of the Dead
Herodotus
Berossus
Diodorus
Porphyry
Eusebius
Pausanias
Bible
Pythagoras
Plato
Aristotle
Diodorus Siculus
Epiphanius
Hippolytus
Plutarch
Tertullian
Justin Martyr
Minucius Felix
Clement Alexandrinus
Tatian
Augustine
Arnobius
Julius Firmicus Maternus
Lactantius
Macrobius
Julian
Vedas
Mahabharata
Bhagavad Gita
Bhagavata Purana
Mahāvastu
Lalita Vistara
Vishnu Purana
Hesiod
Homer
Euripides
Proclus
Origen
Celsus
Philo
Josephus
Avesta
Pseudo-Eratosthenes
Venerable Bede
Cyprian
Ambrose
Hipparchus
Archelaus
Epic of Gilgamesh
Assyrian, Babylonia, Akkadian tablets
Dead Sea Scrolls
Tacitus

The information also comes from the best and most thorough, scholarly and modern sources wherever possible, with the result that many authorities cited possess credentials from respected institutes of higher learning, and their publishers are some of the most scholarly in English (and other languages), such as the following.

Academic Publishers

E.J. Brill
Peeters
Kegan Paul
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Macmillan & Co., etc.

Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the most respected institutes of higher learning.

Professional Scholars

Dr. Miranda J. Aldhouse-Green, a professor of Archaeology at Cardiff University
Dr. Lee I.A. Levine, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary
Dr. Edwin C. Krupp, director of the Griffith Observatory
Dr. Emund S. Meltzer, American Egyptologist
Dr. James P. Allen, curator of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Dr. Erik Hornung, professor emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Basel
Dr. Henri Frankfort, Dutch Egyptologist
Dr. Jan Assman, professor of Egyptology at the University of Konstanz
Dr. Badrya Serry, director of the Antiquities Museum at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt
Dr. Bojana Mojsov, Egyptologist
Dr. Reginald E. Witt, Egyptologist and professor at the University of London
Dr. G. Johannes Botterweck, professor of Old Testament and Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn
Dr. Alfred Wiedermann, Egyptologist and professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Bonn
Dr. John Gwyn Griffiths, Welsh professor of Classics and Egyptology
Dr. Raymond O. Faulkner, English Egyptologist
Dr. Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of Lund
Rev. Dr. Alfred Bertholet, a theologian and professor at the University of Göttingen
Dr. Herman te Velde, a chairman of the Department of Egyptology at the University of Groningen
Dr. Andrew T. Fear, professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester
Dr. David Adams Leeming, professor emeritus of English and comparative literature at the University of Connecticut
Dr. Patricia A. Johnston, Brandeis University professor of Classical Studies
Dr. David John Tacey, professor at La Trobe University
Dr. Edwin F. Bryant, professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University
Dr. Hugo Rahner, Jesuit theologian, dean and president of Innsbruck University
Sir Dr. Edmund Ronald Leach, Cambridge professor and anthropologist
Dr. Donald White, professor emeritus of Classics at the University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Martin Schwartz, professor of Iranian Studies at the University of California
Rev. Dr. Harold R. Willoughby, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago
Dr. Mary Boyce, professor of Iranian Studies
Dr. Payam Nabarz, Iranian scholar
Dr. Marvin Meyers, a professor of Religious Studies at Chapman College
Dr. Theony Condos, professor at the American University of Armenia
Dr. Aviram Oshri, senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority
Dr. Chris Dolan, American astronomer
Rev. Dunbar T. Heath of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Dr. John L. Heilbron, professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley
Dr. K.A. Heinrich Kellner, a professor of Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn
Dr. David Ulansey, philosopher professor at California Institute of Integral Studies
Dr. Robert M. Schoch, geologist and professor at Boston University
Dr. Henricus Oort, Dutch theologian and professor of Hebrew Antiquities at the University of Leiden
Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, an associate professor of Old Testament at the University of Toronto”

ok Pix.. but honestly i feel ready to drop. been a marathon here. how are you?

RAIN “ok Pix.. but honestly i feel ready to drop. been a marathon here. how are you?”

I’m fine, you?. But yeah, all the scrolling up and down is tiring out my index finger.

BIN needs a debate section for such topics, with a cross reference section to keep it tidy. Don’t hold your breath though.