A Challenge or Stripe - Can you defend one aspect of Creation Science of your choice?

[Stripe]

I said that it is not a document.

:AMR:

You need to spell and grammar check. I still have no idea what you're trying to say. The account of Joseph is documented, obviously, and it is from documents.

I said that it is not a ... verified event in history.

Irrelevant. That you think it is inaccurate is enough.

There is nothing in Egyptian writings that supports that Joseph was in Egypt.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is to be ignored every time you use it. One would have thought you would learn — logical fallacies do not get past me.

You have a single account that is not supported by anything else. The Egyptians did record events from this period yet there is nothing in that historical account that supports the story of Joseph. That is why I say it is unverified.

So as a matter of HISTORY, I cannot conclude that it is an accurate account.

Did you have any valid reasons for your rejection of the Joseph account as history, or just the argumentum ad ignorantiam?

I amend my statement to say that there is only a single document that contains the story of Joseph to which you refer.

Well, no. There are many. Here are the oldest known copies of Genesis.

You should be because your chosen subject is history.

I am. However, we're answering one question at a time around here.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. S: Why do you think it is not accurate? C: Because the Egyptians do not mention him. S: Any reasons that do not involve a logical fallacy?

Your turn. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

:AMR:

You need to spell and grammar check. I still have no idea what you're trying to say. The account of Joseph is documented, obviously, and it is from documents.

Irrelevant. That you think it is inaccurate is enough.

No, it not. I have also provided my reasons for for saying what I said. That is how one has a rational discussion, they explain their position.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

is to be ignored every time you use it. One would have thought you would learn — logical fallacies do not get past me.

You offer one uncorroborated account thus you are also arguing from ignorance and you do not have complete information upon which you can base your conclusion.

Did you have any valid reasons for your rejection of the Joseph account as history, or just the argumentum ad ignorantiam?

My reason is valid. It is based on the archaeological findings we have of this period. The written account and archaeological findings do not match, they do not corroborate each other. Any conclusions about one or the other are not logically possible.

Well, no. There are many. Here are the oldest known copies of Genesis.

Copies of the same manuscript do not mean that you have multiple sources, you just have losts of copies of the same thing. Your argument is not rational.

I am. However, we're answering one question at a time around here.

Then why are you refusing to answer so many questions? Go back and answer a few.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Side Bar: Arguments form Ignorance.

Stripe has accused me of making an argument from ignorance when I say something based on archaeological information. I looked up Arguments from Ignorance and found that Stripe is using this as a ploy to avoid discussing things he does not wish to discuss.

To wit: an argument from ignorance is frequently used to shift the burden of proof from one person to another. It is also used to to attempt to limit something to two possibilities, true or false. I have done neither. I have not shifted burden of proof form my statements to Stripe. I stated what I understand to be the case based on the archaeological information we currently posses and I never asked Stripe to prove other wise. Nor have I limited the scope to a simple true or false position. I have simply stated that the evidence we do have is insufficient to support the accounts in Genesis as historically accurate. I have never stated that they did not or could not have happened.

You can read the definition ans see if you agree with me or with Stripe regarding this particular claim. Please feel free to post your thoughts.

 

[Stripe]

That is how one has a rational discussion, they explain their position.

Could you explain how the documents describing Joseph's adventures are not "documentation" of Joseph's story?

You offer one uncorroborated account thus you are also arguing from ignorance and you do not have complete information upon which you can base your conclusion.

Nope. Offering a tu quoque fallacy is another example of you doubling down on your irrational discourse. The correct response to an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam is not to say that I did it too, which is pathetically inaccurate, by the way. I have not offered an uncorroborated account — there are many documents describing Joseph's story — and it is not argumentum ad ignorantiam even if it were true that there was only one. You still haven't learned what the term "argument from ignorance" means. It is not about what we don't know, it is the logical fallacy of concluding something did not happen because of an absence of something an opponent demands should be present.

Please learn some basic tenets of rational discourse. :up:

My reason is valid. It is based on the archaeological findings we have of this period. The written account and archaeological findings do not match, they do not corroborate each other. Any conclusions about one or the other are not logically possible.

OK. Be specific. What account or finding shows that the account of Joseph cannot be accurate?

We can update the conversation summary:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. S: Why do you think it is not accurate? C: Because of documents, artifacts. S: What specific documents and artifacts show the Joseph account inaccurate?

Copies of the same manuscript do not mean that you have multiple sources, you just have losts of copies of the same thing. Your argument is not rational.

:chuckle:
I wish your description was reality, that would make things far simpler. In fact we have multiple copies from multiple sources referencing a hypothesized original collation of numerous documents, which were likely all copies of copies themselves.

However, even with reality being far more complicated than you imagine it to be, we can still do history.

And don't accuse me of being irrational if you think I'm wrong. Those are completely different things.

And I'm right. We have multiple different documents that reference Joseph. Where those document were copied from is generally unknown, not to mention irrelevant to this discussion.

Why are you refusing to answer so many questions?

For the reasons given. You have asked questions based on my correction of your erroneous statements. You demanded that there had to be multiple accounts of creation. I corrected you, but instead of retracting your assertion, you asked why Genesis is the best. This is not how a rational dialogue works.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. S: Why do you think it is not accurate? C: Because of documents, artifacts. S: What specific documents and artifacts show the Joseph account inaccurate?

 

[Stripe]

Side Bar: Arguments form Ignorance.

Stripe has accused me of making an argument from ignorance when I say something based on archaeological information. I looked up Arguments from Ignorance and found that Stripe is using this as a ploy to avoid discussing things he does not wish to discuss.

To wit: an argument from ignorance is frequently used to shift the burden of proof from one person to another. It is also used to to attempt to limit something to two possibilities, true or false. I have done neither. I have not shifted burden of proof form my statements to Stripe. I stated what I understand to be the case based on the archaeological information we currently posses and I never asked Stripe to prove other wise. Nor have I limited the scope to a simple true or false position. I have simply stated that the evidence we do have is insufficient to support the accounts in Genesis as historically accurate. I have never stated that they did not or could not have happened.

You can read the definition ans see if you agree with me or with Stripe regarding this particular claim. Please feel free to post your thoughts.

:darwinsm:

"I have done neither."

You just committed the fallacy you declared to have not made — the false dichotomy — with this very sentence, as you ignored the main point of the Web site you quoted.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

You did assert or imply that your proposition was true because it has not yet been proven false or vice versa on numerous occasions. The first occasion in this thread was when you responded to this advice:

"You need to declare that Genesis is not an account of history and show evidence that it cannot be."

saying:

"Noah's Ar[k], nor any piece of it, has never been found."

This is a clear-cut case of argumentum ad ignorantiam and you should retract your statement.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Could you explain how the documents describing Joseph's adventures are not "documentation" of Joseph's story?

I already did. I said that they were unverified.

Nope. Offering a tu quoque fallacy is another example of you doubling down on your irrational discourse. The correct response to an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam is not to say that I did it too, which is pathetically inaccurate, by the way. I have not offered an uncorroborated account — there are many documents describing Joseph's story — and it is not argumentum ad ignorantiam even if it were true that there was only one. You still haven't learned what the term "argument from ignorance" means. It is not about what we don't know, it is the logical fallacy of concluding something did not happen because of an absence of something an opponent demands should be present.

Really? Where is corroborating evidence for the story of Joseph in Genesis. Note: Multiple copies of Genesis is not corroboration.

As to the rest, I addressed it in a separate post.

Please learn some basic tenets of rational discourse. :up:

I'm not the one here who is not answer questions.

OK. Be specific. What account or finding shows that the account of Joseph cannot be accurate?

There is no other document, or hieroglyphs if you prefer, that support that Joseph was in Egypt and was second to the Pharaoh. We do have Egyptian history from this period of of time so we have to historical accounts that do not corroborate each other. Thus, the story of Joseph is unverified as historical fact. Pay attention: in no way did I just say that the story of Joseph is false. I stated that there is insufficient to draw a conclusion. If you do, then you will be arguing from ignorance. Or faith. Which will it be?

We can update the conversation summary:

Then lets do it honestly, shall we.

C: Why not evolution? Unanswered by Stripe.
S: Genesis is history. Asserted by stripe but not substantiated as a reliable history. This is a statement of faith. Stripe has been asked multiple time to support this position.
C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. Correct
S: Is the Joseph account accurate?
C: No. My actual response is that it is unknowable. We have conflicting accounts and no way to confirm either as established fact.
S: Why do you think it is not accurate?
C: Because of documents, artifacts.
S: What specific documents and artifacts show the Joseph account inaccurate? Archaeological findings to date do not match the story recorded in Genesis. Incomplete evidence to make an absolute statement.

I wish your description was reality, that would make things far simpler. In fact we have multiple copies from multiple sources referencing a hypothesized original collation of numerous documents, which were likely all copies of copies themselves.

However, even with reality being far more complicated than you imagine it to be, we can still do history.

Multiple copies of the same document are still the same document.

And don't accuse me of being irrational if you think I'm wrong. Those are completely different things.

I think you are being irrational.

And I'm right. We have multiple different documents that reference Joseph. Where those document were copied from is generally unknown, not to mention irrelevant to this discussion.

Then start posting links to all these documents so that we can see that you are right. What does it mean about your claim if you do not post the links to the documents that you claim support you?

For the reasons given. You have asked questions based on my correction of your erroneous statements. You demanded that there had to be multiple accounts of creation. I corrected you, but instead of retracting your assertion, you asked why Genesis is the best. This is not how a rational dialogue works.

This is exactly how rational dialog works, you make a claim, i question you about the basis of your claim and you respond. You seem unable to complete the last part. Why is that? Why can't you tell us how you determined that Genesis is the best creation account that we have?

This is also how academic discussions work. You make a statement and then your peers question you regarding your statement. You are expected to defend your statement against their questions. Again, this is how rational dialog works.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

"I have done neither."

You just committed the fallacy you declared to have not made — the false dichotomy — with this very sentence, as you ignored the main point of the Web site you quoted.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

You did assert or imply that your proposition was true because it has not yet been proven false or vice versa on numerous occasions. The first occasion in this thread was when you responded to this advice:

"You need to declare that Genesis is not an account of history and show evidence that it cannot be."

saying:

"Noah's Ar[k], nor any piece of it, has never been found."

This is a clear-cut case of argumentum ad ignorantiam and you should retract your statement.

No, I never made the claim that my position is true based on the archaeological evidence. I have only ever stated that the archaeological evidence we have does not support the biblical accounts of this period in history. You asked me why I do not see Genesis as an accurate history and I answered that question. I did not say, nor imply, that archaeology proves the bible is false.

You are flat out lying about what I have said. Disagree? Post the link to the post where I said that archaeology proves the bible is false. I am not responsible for how you choose to infer things. I stand by what I have said.

 

[Stripe]

I never made the claim that my position is true based on the archaeological evidence.

No?

Stripe: Why is the Joseph account not accurate? Cabinetmaker: My reason is valid. It is based on the archaeological findings we have of this period. The written account and archaeological findings do not match, they do not corroborate each other. Any conclusions about one or the other are not logically possible.

Why do you keep saying things like this when the record is right there?

And, really. This has nothing to do with the post you quoted. You really, really need to read more carefully and respond sensibly.

I have only ever stated that the archaeological evidence we have does not support the biblical accounts of this period in history.

Which I accepted! This reply has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

You are flat out lying about what I have said.

Nope. I quote you in context and respond carefully. You can't even figure out what you believe yourself.

Post the link to the post where I said that archaeology proves the bible is false. I am not responsible for how you choose to infer things. I stand by what I have said.

Try reading the post you quoted again. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No?

Stripe: Why is the Joseph account not accurate? Cabinetmaker: My reason is valid. It is based on the archaeological findings we have of this period. The written account and archaeological findings do not match, they do not corroborate each other. Any conclusions about one or the other are not logically possible.

Why do you keep saying things like this when the record is right there?[/quote you should learn to read and reply to the entirety of what people say, Please note the highlighted portion of what I said. I stated that no conclusion was possible.

And, really. This has nothing to do with the post you quoted. You really, really need to read more carefully and respond sensibly.

I address your "argument from ignorance" ploy.

Which I accepted! This reply has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

Great! No tell us how you determined that Genesis was the best of all available creation accounts.

Nope. I quote you in context and respond carefully. You can't even figure out what you believe yourself.

You do respond very carefully. You are careful to distort everything I saw and create straw men to argue against.

As to what I believe, that is a topic for another thread. I know what I believe.

Try reading the post you quoted again. You have no idea what you're talking about.

So no response from you. Noted.

 

[Stripe]

I already did. I said that they were unverified.

Documents are not documents if they're not verified. :dizzy:

OK. I guess you mean something by that. Maybe you'll figure out how to express it so that others can understand it one day. :up:

Where is corroborating evidence for the story of Joseph in Genesis. Note: Multiple copies of Genesis is not corroboration.

Actually, multiple accounts of the same basic story is one of the ways historians judge the veracity of an account.

I guess that's why you want all the extant copies we have to be from a single, secondary source. However, this is simply not the case.

There is no other document, or hieroglyphs if you prefer, that support that Joseph was in Egypt and was second to the Pharaoh.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

We do have Egyptian history from this period of of time so we have to historical accounts that do not corroborate each other.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

Thus, the story of Joseph is unverified as historical fact.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

One would have thought you would have learned by now.

Pay attention: in no way did I just say that the story of Joseph is false. I stated that there is insufficient to draw a conclusion.

You're now answering a different question. This is a non sequitur.

The question was not: "Is there sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion." The question is: "What evidence do you have to show that the account of Joseph is not accurate."

You pile fallacy upon fallacy and contribute little but nonsense.

Once again: the conversation:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: No. S: Why do you think it is not accurate? C: Because of documents, artifacts. S: What specific documents and artifacts show the Joseph account inaccurate?

You have to answer the questions I ask, not invent your own questions to answer.

If you do, then you will be arguing from ignorance. Or faith. Which will it be?

Evidence. History, remember?

C: Why not evolution? History, remember? S: Genesis is history. Asserted by Stripe. We are working toward figuring out whether this assertion is justified. Slowly. This is a statement supported by evidence. Stripe has been asked multiple time to support this position, but the conversation has stalled because of the numerous fallacies and rabbit trails. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. Asserted by Cabinetmaker S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: It is unknowable. This answer has changed, making the subsequent conversation obsolete.

Multiple copies of the same document are still the same document.

Ultimately, you are correct. However, by asserting this, you are undermining your claim that the history is "unknowable."

I think you are being irrational.

That's nice.

Then start posting links to all these documents so that we can see that you are right. What does it mean about your claim if you do not post the links to the documents that you claim support you?

You mean other than the link I posted?

This is exactly how rational dialog works, you make a claim, i question you about the basis of your claim and you respond. You seem unable to complete the last part. Why is that? Why can't you tell us how you determined that Genesis is the best creation account that we have?

For the reasons given. Your conduct is utterly senseless.

This is also how academic discussions work. You make a statement and then your peers question you regarding your statement. You are expected to defend your statement against their questions. Again, this is how rational dialog works.

Except when the questions are stupid.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

This is where the conversation is at. Try to answer the bolded question rather than making up a question to answer. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Documents are not documents if they're not verified. :dizzy:

OK. I guess you mean something by that. Maybe you'll figure out how to express it so that others can understand it one day. :up:

doc·u·ment noun noun: document; plural noun: documents ˈdäkyəmənt/ 1. a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record.

You have a printed piece of paper that conveys information about ancient history, It is considered to be an official document by you. Your document does not, however, other documents or archaeological evidence the corroborate the contents of your document. Additionally, there are other disciplines of science that have done research and have documented findings that contradict your document. The lack of historical evidence coupled with the modern findings that contradict your documents accounts is sufficient to exclude your document as an accurate account of history.

Actually, multiple accounts of the same basic story is one of the ways historians judge the veracity of an account.

I guess that's why you want all the extant copies we have to be from a single, secondary source. However, this is simply not the case.

You claimed earlier in this thread that there are at least 10 writers of Genesis. Are you now claiming that there are other writers who have accounts similar to Genesis? Are you claiming that works done by various scribes well after the original document was penned should be considered as independent accounts of Creation? Be specific. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this claim

Argumentum ad ignorantium

is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

Argumentum ad ignorantium is a fallacy no matter how many times you try it.

You have yet again failed according to the rules laid out in the OP Saddly, this is truly the best you have to offer and it is in no way a positive witness for any hope you may have with in. It is obviously and intentionally evasive on your part.

You're now answering a different question. This is a non sequitur.

The question was not: "Is there sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion." The question is: "What evidence do you have to show that the account of Joseph is not accurate."

You pile fallacy upon fallacy and contribute little but nonsense.

I answered the question. But you cannot deal with what I said so you play this game of calling everything anybody says that you cannot reasonably address a fallacy. This is why you fail at rational conversation. You are fundamentally irrational in your approach to talking to people.

Deleted as non-responsive.

Ultimately, you are correct. However, by asserting this, you are undermining your claim that the history is "unknowable."

This does not undermine my claim, it has been my claim all along that large parts of history are unknowable. There is insufficient information to form an accurate and detailed history of the world. We have to take what little information we do have and piece it together as best we can.

You mean other than the link I posted?

For the reasons given. Your conduct is utterly senseless.

These are both irrational statements.

Except when the questions are stupid.

It is never to stupid to ask somebody to support statements they have offered as fact.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

This is where the conversation is at. Try to answer the bolded question rather than making up a question to answer. :up:

This is not where the question is at. We are still trying to determine if Genesis is an accurate accounting of history. If we cannot agree on this then there is no commonality for a conversation. I have explained to you that Genesis is not an accurate accounting of history based on archaeological study and from experimental evidence from other scientific disciplines that indicate the timeline in Genesis is it supported by scientific observation and experiment

 

[Stripe]

This is not where the question is at.

Sure, it is.

We are still trying to determine if Genesis is an accurate accounting of history.

Sure. And if you'd answer the question, we might be able to get there. :up:

If we cannot agree on this then there is no commonality for a conversation. I have explained to you that Genesis is not an accurate accounting of history based on archaeological study and from experimental evidence from other scientific disciplines that indicate the timeline in Genesis is it supported by scientific observation and experiment

Unfortunately for your argument, asserting your opinion does not establish fact. We are testing your ideas — and mine — to see whether they stack up.

You know: Science. :up:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes, Genesis is the foundation of the Gospel. That does not mean that it is a 100% accurate history.

Then nothing in the Bible is true.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.....

 

[CabinetMaker]

Sure, it is.

Sure. And if you'd answer the question, we might be able to get there. :up:

Unfortunately for your argument, asserting your opinion does not establish fact. We are testing your ideas – and mine — to see whether they stack up.

No. we are testing your argument that Genesis is history. You have not provided us an answer as to how you determined the Genesis is the best creation account available. You need to answer that question before we can continue.

I have already provided my answer about Genesis and my basis for that answer which means I have not made an unfounded assertion.

 

[Nick M]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.....

The Lord Jesus Christ is a Sith? Who knew....

Luke 14

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

[Stripe]

No. we are testing your argument that Genesis is history.

Nope.

Here is where the conversation is at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

You have not provided us an answer as to how you determined the Genesis is the best creation account available.

Actually, I have. But I reckon you completely ignored it.

You need to answer that question before we can continue.

Nope. The ball is in your court, remember?

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I have already provided my answer about Genesis and my basis for that answer which means I have not made an unfounded assertion.

I'm not worried about you making an unfounded assertion. I'm trying to have a conversation.

Here's where it is at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I bolded that question you face. Anytime now is fine. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope.

Here is where the conversation is at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Actually, I have. But I reckon you completely ignored it.

Nope. The ball is in your court, remember?

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I'm not worried about you making an unfounded assertion. I'm trying to have a conversation.

Here's where it is at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

I bolded that question you face. Anytime now is fine. :up:

How did you determine that Genesis is the best creation account "by far"? This is where the conversation is at. You simple assertion that Genesis is an accurate history is not sufficient to establish it as such. You are offering it has a history text so please provide support that Genesis is accurate as a history.

Until you establish Genesis as an accurate history, any questions regarding the people and accounts of Genesis cannot be addressed as historical fact.

 

[Stripe]

How did you determine that Genesis is the best creation account "by far"?

This has been answered.

This is where the conversation is at.

Nope.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

You simple assertion that Genesis is an accurate history is not sufficient to establish it as such.

We'll get to that. Meanwhile, we're still trying to figure out where you stand.

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

You are offering it has a history text so please provide support that Genesis is accurate as a history.

And you're asserting that it cannot be determined whether it is accurate. Hence the question you face. Is it possible that the Joseph account is accurate? Your answer should be "yes," but let's get that from you.

Until you establish Genesis as an accurate history, any questions regarding the people and accounts of Genesis cannot be addressed as historical fact.

I'm not addressing anything as fact. It's called a discussion. Feel free to join it.

Here's where it's at:

C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate?

Your move. :up:

 

[Nick M]

Egypt? Semitic people?

 

[Stripe]

Egypt? Semitic people?

:shocked:

Evidence?! Nick! Are you trying to shake Cabinetmaker's faith?