 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / August 2008Bait and Switch on biblical Israel
Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. But when one asked for evidence they only produce evidence the land was inhabited which was never in question. Point out they have engaged in bait and switch and they accuse you of being a literal believer. Using the same method I can show New York City has existed for ten thousand years. All I need do is show humans inhabited the land that is now New York City and it must have existed 10,000 years ago because only a literal believer would expect to find a real city. > Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always > appear willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > now New York City and it must have existed 10,000 years ago because only > a literal believer would expect to find a real city. The white man made us many promises...........................  SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people >> always appear willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The white man made us many promises........................... But not that he would make us honorary New Yorkers. SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 > Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear > willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > City and it must have existed 10,000 years ago because only a literal believer > would expect to find a real city. You are a lier in the tradition of Josef Goebbels. Whenever you are given evidence you start a new thread and go on spamming sci.archaeology and sci.lang with your neo-nutsy lies. It happened with the thread on the Caananites, and again with the the authority thread. I told you about the Chalcolithic Beersheba culture that reached as far as the Jezreel valley with Meggido, and I told you about the Lachish and Arad ostraca, Hebrew letters written by captains to their commanders, proving that believers in Yahweh got in military troubles with Assyria in around 600 BC. There are older Hebrew inscriptions from the tenth century BC onward. There are tells that have been inhabited for 3,000 years. There are Bible passages that are word for word the same as in tablets from Ugarit. You are told about all this, but you snip it, start a new thread, and go on with your gross lies. Keep away from sci.archaeology and sci.lang, neo-Nazi Matthias Giwer alias Matt Giwer. >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear >> willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You are a lier in the tradition of Josef Goebbels. Although you got Goebbels right it is LIAR. > Whenever you are given evidence you start a new > thread and go on spamming sci.archaeology I have been posting to sci.arch since 1995 or so. When did you graduate high school? > and > sci.lang with your neo-nutsy lies. It happened with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Keep away from sci.archaeology and sci.lang, > neo-Nazi Matthias Giwer alias Matt Giwer. You may have told me a lot of things but you have only the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger when the message is unassailable. Unless you are a creationist, bibleland has been inhabited by humans for 100,000 or so depending upon when humans first left Africa. Before then were Orangutans and Gibbons and Homo Erectus. I do not understand why anyone other than an idiot would thing a mere 3000 years is worth mentioning. SignatureWhat does the US gain from military bases in Iraq? Is it worth the cost? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4027 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 > Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear > willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. > > But when one asked for evidence they only produce evidence the land was > inhabited which was never in question. Point out they have engaged in bait and > switch and they accuse you of being a literal believer. I've seen a claim that archaeology shows that remains of pigs (used for meat) are no longer found in some part of the present Israel after 1200 BCE. If the claim is correct, who do you think were the people who started eschewing pork at that time? > Using the same method I can show New York City has existed for ten thousand > years. All I need do is show humans inhabited the land that is now New York > City and it must have existed 10,000 years ago because only a literal believer > would expect to find a real city. >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear >> willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1200 BCE. If the claim is correct, who do you think were the people > who started eschewing pork at that time? <...must...resist...making...pun...> Simple. All the people converted to Islam at that time. Oh, wait. Well, never let it be said that Matt allowed a little thing like history to get in the way of his ideas. <snip> >>> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people >>> always appear [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> 1200 BCE. If the claim is correct, who do you think were the people >> who started eschewing pork at that time? > <...must...resist...making...pun...> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, never let it be said that Matt allowed a little thing like history > to get in the way of his ideas. Never let it be said that I know only two or three disciplines of which history (which definition means written down) is but one. What you choose to ignore is that 1200 BC corresponds only to the long discredited idea of a Joshua invasion after the mythical Exodus lead by the mythical Moses. Even the best of believers agree that is all nonsense. See Bible Unearthed by Silberman and Finkelstein. They are Israelis and Jews and archaeologists and their books says 1200 BC is bullshit. They also say Moses and everything prior to an independent Judea is bullshit. That they then hand-wave a Judea into existence is an indication there is only so much truth the peasants can take in one generation. >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear >> willing to claim there is a biblical Israel. >> But when one asked for evidence they only produce evidence the land was >> inhabited which was never in question. Point out they have engaged in bait and >> switch and they accuse you of being a literal believer. > I've seen a claim that archaeology shows that remains of pigs (used > for meat) are no longer found in some part of the present Israel after > 1200 BCE. If the claim is correct, who do you think were the people > who started eschewing pork at that time? I have seen claims which might be construed as that but not that. As you stated it, it is not true. About 50 years ago a definitive study was published followed by a popular version showing that pig-loving and pig-hating has to do with the fact that humans and pigs are omnivorous. To make a long story short in arid regions pigs are frowned upon to condemned because of the competition for food. There may have been a decline 1200 years ago but also there was a climate change about that time which affected the entire region and is associated with the collapse of Mycenae. The entire eastern Med started drying up -- and not a global warming power plant in sight. In any event, if there is any fact to what you say there are much simpler and more direct explanations for it. However there is a more important point here. As there is NO credible basis for any religious aspect to these stories -- there was not god prohibiting anything -- there is no basis for making an issue of this regardless of the explanation. SignatureIs the evidence linking Israel to 9/11 still classified? If so, why? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4021 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > anything -- there is no basis for making an issue of this regardless of the > explanation. Pigs survive and breed easily, and there is still today a population of wild boars in Israel. But the pig provides practically nothing else than meat: no milk, no wool, and so on. It is therefore somewhat of a luxury. I haven't looked at the exact development, but one possibility is that what we see is the creation of marginal settlements that were pigless to begin with, and that one doesn't have to add factors like climate change, or that the pigs were stealing human food. There is an article about it by Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, titled, “Can Pig Bones Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Marcus >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the >Present. There is also the Trichinosis factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis Eric Stevens ... > There is also the Trichinosis factor. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis Although even high schools are working to ban wikipedia because of it contents trichinosis is a highly unlikely explanation. The basic problem it the evidence of the disease comes years after ingestion so there is no clear correlation. But if over millenia people did make the connection it is almost impossible over the time it would take to associate the disease with pigs that they could have missed "well done" prevents the problem. And even then, given the range of foods, one would expect a prohibition of under-cooked anything to arise before it was narrowed down to pork. Additionally peasants are much more likely to eat their meats as soups and stews than slabs of meat and that is sufficient to eliminate the worm. Finally this problem would exist every place pigs were eaten but only in arid regions do we find a taboo against them. There is nothing to connect arid regions with discovering a problem with undercooked pork. SignatureIs the evidence linking Israel to 9/11 still classified? If so, why? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4021 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3 >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> anything -- there is no basis for making an issue of this regardless of the >> explanation. > Pigs survive and breed easily, and there is still today a population > of wild boars in Israel. But the pig provides practically nothing else > than meat: no milk, no wool, and so on. It is therefore somewhat of a > luxury. I forget the name of the book. Where food is abundant and pigs can root for it where people would not eat it then pigs are a freebie source of meat. The example in the book was from the South Pacific where wild tarot and similar foods are common. I read it decades ago. I might find it faulty if I were to read it again. However it was intended to explain the pig taboo in the middle east as practical rather than religious. > I haven't looked at the exact development, but one possibility is that > what we see is the creation of marginal settlements that were pigless > to begin with, and that one doesn't have to add factors like climate > change, or that the pigs were stealing human food. > There is an article about it by Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, titled, > “Can Pig Bones Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?” > in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the > Present. The problem with such claims is that it is supposed to support an immigration of pig-haters into the region. However to do that one has to show a change from a previous culture meaning pig bones at a level older than the pigless. What is found in bibleland is only that the oldest level in the hills is pigless. That does not show a change other than people starting to live in the hills. This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. SignatureThe information connecting Israel to 9/11 remains classified seven years later. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4024 http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7 >>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > it faulty if I were to read it again. However it was intended to explain > the pig taboo in the middle east as practical rather than religious. Doesn't eating tarot make the pigs superstitous? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> > Doesn't eating tarot make the pigs superstitous? Not if they play their cards right. SignatureYou can learn more about the Gospels watching the Life of Brian than can from a month of Sunday Schools. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4031 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 > This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. No one in the thread has said they were Jews. Why do you? You believe they were around at the time. Marcus > > This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. > > No one in the thread has said they were Jews. Why do you? You believe > they were around at the time. > > Marcus :) That was not well written of me. It should say, why do you mention them. Marcus >> This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. > No one in the thread has said they were Jews. Why do you? You believe > they were around at the time. Trying to salvage the "jews" after even believers had to admit the kingdom of Israel and everything prior was bullshit the only reason to introduce the pig issue is to invent a whole new mythology as to where they came from. SignatureThe official motto of the Holocaust is, I want to believe. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4017 http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 > Trying to salvage the "jews" after even believers had to admit the kingdom of > Israel and everything prior was bullshit the only reason to introduce the pig > issue is to invent a whole new mythology as to where they came from. "Believers" have admitted no such thing - almost by definition! As for archaeologists, historians and other rational people, they all agree that there was a kingdom of Israel, based on the physical evidence. Mat the Pratt is the only dissenting voice. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >> Trying to salvage the "jews" after even believers had to admit the kingdom of >> Israel and everything prior was bullshit the only reason to introduce the pig >> issue is to invent a whole new mythology as to where they came from. > "Believers" have admitted no such thing - almost by definition! As for > archaeologists, historians and other rational people, they all agree > that there was a kingdom of Israel, based on the physical evidence. > Mat the Pratt is the only dissenting voice. Have you forgotten Finkelstein already? SignatureWhat does the US gain from military bases in Iraq? Is it worth the cost? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4027 http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 > kkd...@diggingsonline.com wrote: > > In message <4865b2b3$0$12010$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Have you forgotten Finkelstein already? Would you care to quote the passage(s) by Finkelstein that you're alluding to? >>kkd...@diggingsonline.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Would you care to quote the passage(s) by Finkelstein that you're > alluding to? He undoubtedly means Finkelstein's 2001 Bible Unearthed where he claims that the kingdom of Judah began creating the Bible and its tales in the 8th century BCE....huh, Jews, kingdom of Judah, Hebrew biblical texts....all in diametric opposition to Giwer's claims. >>> Have you forgotten Finkelstein already? >> Would you care to quote the passage(s) by Finkelstein that you're >> alluding to? > He undoubtedly means Finkelstein's 2001 Bible Unearthed where he claims > that the kingdom of Judah began creating the Bible and its tales in the > 8th century BCE....huh, Jews, kingdom of Judah, Hebrew biblical > texts....all in diametric opposition to Giwer's claims. Quite so - and Matt the Pratt was obliged to admit a while ago that he disagrees with Finkelstein. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >>> kkd...@diggingsonline.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 8th century BCE....huh, Jews, kingdom of Judah, Hebrew biblical > texts....all in diametric opposition to Giwer's claims. IF there was a Solomon [then] he was no more than a hilltop warlord. Care to respond? SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 >> kkd...@diggingsonline.com wrote: >>> In message <4865b2b3$0$12010$9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> Mat the Pratt is the only dissenting voice. >> Have you forgotten Finkelstein already? > Would you care to quote the passage(s) by Finkelstein that you're > alluding to? IF Solomon existed [then] he was no more than a hilltop warlord. Good enough? If you are willing to run with that Israel was his hill. Calling him a warlord is elevating a tribal elder to something that sounds impressive. But any rational person who accepts that has to shitcan every principle of the OT. Is circumcision worth a f.cking hilltop? The OT is purely complying with ritual and taboo in this life in return for rewards in this life. Th entire reward is a shitty hilltop. Yet our tour director claims there are artifacts of this hilltop in museums all over the middle east and YOU agreed with him. Please get your act together. SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 > Yet our tour director claims there are artifacts of this hilltop in museums > all over the middle east and YOU agreed with him. As usual, Matt the Pratt is being economical with the truth - in other words, he is lying his head off. There are artefacts in museums all over the world which can be related to people or events mentioned in the Bible. Not all of them relate to Solomon nor even to Jerusalem. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >> "Believers" have admitted no such thing - almost by definition! As for >> archaeologists, historians and other rational people, they all agree >> that there was a kingdom of Israel, based on the physical evidence. >> Mat the Pratt is the only dissenting voice. > Have you forgotten Finkelstein already? Not at all - the difference is that I know what he said and what he didn't say. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== > >> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>> Believers in OT related religions or in an ancient OT people always appear [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. The information as presented in this newsgroup was that at some sites, pig bones were present and subsequently pig bones were not present. If you can't even read what is found in this very newsgorup, go away. And no one has ever suggested there were "Jews" in 1200 BCE (not "1200 years ago"). ... >> The problem with such claims is that it is supposed to support an immigration >> of pig-haters into the region. However to do that one has to show a change >> from a previous culture meaning pig bones at a level older than the pigless. >> What is found in bibleland is only that the oldest level in the hills is >> pigless. That does not show a change other than people starting to live in the >> hills. >> This is torturing the evidence to admit it is jewish. > The information as presented in this newsgroup was that at some sites, > pig bones were present and subsequently pig bones were not present. It is not clear how that could be done as it was first introduced regarding people living in the hills and there the oldest levels have no pig bones. Those are the same people who made their own pottery for personal use, i.e. not decorated. > If you can't even read what is found in this very newsgorup, go away. > And no one has ever suggested there were "Jews" in 1200 BCE (not "1200 > years ago"). The problem with you folks is none of you will give any evidence for whatever date you imagine they existed. I presume it is the requirement for the physical evidence for the date which has you all holding back. All except for the tour guide who tells the grayheads all about it. SignatureMicrosoft solved the piracy problem by bringing out Vista. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4023 http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5 > I forget the name of the book. How convenient. On Jun 27, 7:15 am, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > I forget the name of the book. > > How convenient. Here are some recommendations from N P Lemche, a leader of the "Copenhagen School" of "minimalists" [also posted in the other thread]: *** If you want a modern survey from the left, you can wait to November for my The Old Testament between Theology and History, espec. The appendix: The History of Palestine without the Old Testament. You could also read Keith Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel, 1996. From the middle you have Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2006. From the right, well, is it really worth it? but you might choose old John Bright, or at least the much newer one by Abraham Malamat, History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues, 2001. And now we are at it, representing a position that comes close to the middle of the road -- today: my Ancient Israel from 1988. You could of cause also decide to stay with the evangelical (fundamentalist) history of biblical Israel by Provan, Long and Longtemper (or Long, Provan, and Longtemper or...) published three years ago (I will not go for the book now in order not to wake up the dogs). >> I forget the name of the book. > How convenient. Inconvenient for you as it will be more difficult for you to find it. I recited facts without any claim the book was the source. The facts remain facts. SignatureWhat does the US gain from military bases in Iraq? Is it worth the cost? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4027 http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 On Jun 27, 11:48 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I forget the name of the book. > > How convenient. > > Inconvenient for you as it will be more difficult for you to find it. I > recited facts without any claim the book was the source. The facts remain facts. Why, because you say so? You have provided ample evidence of the quality of your assertions. > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I forget the name of the book. > > How convenient. > > Inconvenient for you as it will be more difficult for you to find it. I > recited facts without any claim the book was the source. The facts remain facts. The books you read, or purport to have read, contain "facts which remain facts".. The books everybody else reads, are just an "authority" to "appeal to" and are contaminated by Judaeo-Christian "beliefs". >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> I forget the name of the book. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The books everybody else reads, are just an "authority" to "appeal to" > and are contaminated by Judaeo-Christian "beliefs". If you had facts then you could recite them. You cannot recite them. Therefore you are posting your beliefs. SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2 > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Therefore you are posting your beliefs. Pretty rich coming from a latvalaho who cannot back his beliefs with anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their kid brother has been posting to you. Have you YET bothered to read any archaeology, history or even a primer on Semitic languages (which is something you really need to do)? Dragonblaze > > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > archaeology, history or even a primer on Semitic languages (which is > something you really need to do)? Incidentally, is Finnish your native language? I note the entirely appropriate epithet "latvalaho" with appreciation. On 2 Jul, 11:48, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] > > Pretty rich coming from a latvalaho who cannot back his beliefs with > > anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Incidentally, is Finnish your native language? I note the entirely > appropriate epithet "latvalaho" with appreciation.- Hide quoted text - Yes it is. I was debating whether to use latvalaho or latvakakkonen, as both would apply. *grin* Dragonblaze In message <4ed14a01-736b-45eb-9b26-7f7890e75f45@8g2000hse.googlegroup s.com> >> Incidentally, is Finnish your native language? I note the entirely >> appropriate epithet "latvalaho" with appreciation.- Hide quoted text - > Yes it is. I was debating whether to use latvalaho or latvakakkonen, > as both would apply. *grin* Do let the rest of us in on the joke. Apart from guessing that it means something like "ignoramus", we are in the dark. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== On Jul 2, 10:23 pm, Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com> wrote: > In message <4ed14a01-736b-45eb-9b26-7f7890e75...@8g2000hse.googlegroup > s.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do let the rest of us in on the joke. Apart from guessing that it > means something like "ignoramus", we are in the dark. "Latva" means the top of a tree, "laho" means decayed, specifically used of trees. Here, of course, both words are used metaphorically. "Kakkonen" means "number two", so a latvskakkonen is somebody with a second-rate "top". Both words can mean "idiot" or "ignoramus", but they do convey also the sense of mental instability. In message <cf2748fe-c0a9-44ee-98bb-43aea97b713d@56g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com> > Both words can mean "idiot" or "ignoramus", but they do convey also > the sense of mental instability. Thanks. Excellent descriptions of Matt the Pratt. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pretty rich coming from a latvalaho You need to present an English translation of that word. > who cannot back his beliefs with > anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their > kid brother has been posting to you. Have you YET bothered to read any > archaeology, history or even a primer on Semitic languages (which is > something you really need to do)? I have no beliefs. I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of physical evidence by folks like you. If you have physical evidence to present which contradicts the basic premises you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of interest. Anyone who presents physical evidence is required to defend it. SignatureHodie quinto Nonas Iulias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 > I have no beliefs. I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of > physical evidence by folks like you. Once again, Matt the Pratt lies. He has fixed and rigid beliefs - nasty, nazi ones at that - for which he has no physical evidence and which are contradicted by the physical evidence posted my myself, Dragonblaze and many others. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== > I have no beliefs. Yet another assertion that he is not human! > I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of > physical evidence by folks like you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anyone who presents physical evidence is required to defend it. Why are _you_ excluded from that stricture? You don't present anything except something that you "read in a book" -- and you don't even know what book it was. >> I have no beliefs. > Yet another assertion that he is not human! Are you asserting all humans are irrational as you are? >> I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of >> physical evidence by folks like you. >> If you have physical evidence to present which contradicts the basic premises >> you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of >> interest. >> Anyone who presents physical evidence is required to defend it. > Why are _you_ excluded from that stricture? You don't present anything > except something that you "read in a book" -- and you don't even know > what book it was. My premise is the total absence of evidence of anything of interest in the OT prior to the Septuagint. What possible evidence do you think can be presented of that? SignatureHodie quarto Nonas Iulias MMVIII est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org a1 > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You need to present an English translation of that word. Nobody needs to "present" anything. Who are you to tell us what we "need" to do? > > who cannot back his beliefs with > > anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have no beliefs. You have the belief that the Tanakh is translated from the Septuagint. That is a pretty strong belief, for instance. I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of > physical evidence by folks like you. Come on, words are no physical evidence. Especially your words. > If you have physical evidence to present which contradicts the basic premises > you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of > interest. You are still wilfully misunderstanding your position. You are presenting a novel theory. So it's your job to present the evidence, not ours. > Anyone who presents physical evidence is required to defend it. You really haven't got a clue. > Hodie quinto Nonas Iulias MMVIII est > -- The Ferric Webcaesar > http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtmla6 >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> Pretty rich coming from a latvalaho >> You need to present an English translation of that word. > Nobody needs to "present" anything. Who are you to tell us what we > "need" to do? very silly >>> who cannot back his beliefs with >>> anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their >>> kid brother has been posting to you. Have you YET bothered to read any >>> archaeology, history or even a primer on Semitic languages (which is >>> something you really need to do)? >> I have no beliefs. > You have the belief that the Tanakh is translated from the Septuagint. > That is a pretty strong belief, for instance. I have said there is no evidence of the OT or its good guys existing before the Septuagint appears. I have said the simplest explanation for the total absence of these people is the OT is the translation. What problem do you find with that? >> I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of >> physical evidence by folks like you. > > Come on, words are no physical evidence. Especially your words. Why do believers make a special pleading for bibleland? Why do they insist upon scraps and shards when it would not be accepted for any other ancient civilization? >> If you have physical evidence to present which contradicts the basic premises >> you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > presenting a novel theory. So it's your job to present the evidence, > not ours. I observed the FACT that there is no evidence prior the the Septuagint. From that uncontested fact I presented an explanation of it which is by definition a theory. If you have another explanation for that FACT please present it. >> Anyone who presents physical evidence is required to defend it. > > You really haven't got a clue. I await either your explanation of the fact or contrary fact. If you do present a fact like the "moabite inscription" you are required to defend it as a credible fact AND to show it shows the good guys in the OT really existed. SignatureWhen in France do as the Romans do -- pillage. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4020 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > very silly Go learn the language yourself, if you are so terribly interested in what it means. > >>> who cannot back his beliefs with > >>> anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Septuagint appears. I have said the simplest explanation for the total > absence of these people is the OT is the translation. I am singularly not interested in whether the "good guys" of the OT existed or not. Linguistic evidence shows that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew original, not the other way round. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity, or non-veracity, of the adventures described in the OT. > What problem do you find with that? The problem that you are entirely ignorant of the languages involved, and yet present novel theories. If you took the trouble of actually learning the languages, you would be taken much more seriously. > >> I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of > >> physical evidence by folks like you. > > > Come on, words are no physical evidence. Especially your words. > > Why do believers make a special pleading for bibleland? Nobody is "making a special plea for bibleland". People are simply making a normal plea for common scientific principles. By what proof are you asserting that I, Peter Daniels, or anybody here is a "believer" or an advocate of "bibleland"? Why do they insist > upon scraps and shards when it would not be accepted for any other ancient > civilization? Wrong. "Scraps and shards", especially with writing on them, are valuable evidence for any civilization. > >> If you have physical evidence to present which contradicts the basic premises > >> you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that uncontested fact I presented an explanation of it which is by definition > a theory. You don't have a clue, do you? > If you have another explanation for that FACT please present it. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- The Iron Webmaster, 4020 > http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.htmla4 >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity, or non-veracity, of the > adventures described in the OT. As there is no evidence they existed and yet you hold there was a "hebrew" original, what is your explanation for the existence of this original? >> What problem do you find with that? > > The problem that you are entirely ignorant of the languages involved, > and yet present novel theories. If you took the trouble of actually > learning the languages, you would be taken much more seriously. I only present a theory which includes the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of the good guys. What is your explanation? >>>> I only post the physical evidence and note the lack of >>>> physical evidence by folks like you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are you asserting that I, Peter Daniels, or anybody here is a > "believer" or an advocate of "bibleland"? Then you must produce an explanation of the creation of the OT by people in a culture for which there is no evidence of its existence. Can you do that? > Why do they insist >> upon scraps and shards when it would not be accepted for any other ancient >> civilization? > Wrong. "Scraps and shards", especially with writing on them, are > valuable evidence for any civilization. Go re-read which ever parts of the OT you choose to believe and then show me the ruins of the cities. Show me evidence that the culture which created this existed. Percentagewise, bibleland is the most dug place in the world. What has been found of this civilization? SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 > Go re-read which ever parts of the OT you choose to believe and then show me > the ruins of the cities. Show me evidence that the culture which created this > existed. Percentagewise, bibleland is the most dug place in the world. What > has been found of this civilization? Come on one of our tours and we'll show you. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== [snip] > > Pretty rich coming from a latvalaho > > You need to present an English translation of that word. The nearest equivalent I can think of would be 'nutcase'. > > who cannot back his beliefs with > > anything - and has a need to deny real evidence everybody and their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you are free to do so. But you have not done so. Your beliefs are not of > interest. Done so. Lots. But you ignore everything that contradicts your fantasies. Dragonblaze > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Therefore you are posting your beliefs. What you "recite" as "facts" is based on a book you have read. What I "recite" as "facts" is based on books I have read. What exactly makes your book better than mine? On Jul 2, 6:51 am, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> I forget the name of the book. > > >>> How convenient. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What I "recite" as "facts" is based on books I have read. > What exactly makes your book better than mine?- It's the one that he read. You, on the other hand, have read more than one book, and moreover they were in more than one language. >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Therefore you are posting your beliefs. > What you "recite" as "facts" is based on a book you have read. > What I "recite" as "facts" is based on books I have read. > What exactly makes your book better than mine? I only make note of the absence of physical evidence in support of the believers. Are you insisting I evidence a negative? If you are you are stupid and uneducated to boot. SignatureIraqis are being held responsible for the actions of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Are not the voters in a democracy equally responsible for all the actions of their government? -- The Iron Webmaster, 4025 http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6 > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I only make note of the absence of physical evidence in support of the believers The problem is, that the burden of proof is on you. In all scientific discussion, the burden of proof is on the one who is presenting a novel theory. Your theory of the origins of Hebrew is new and untested. Thus, it is your job to provide the evidence, not the other way round. > Are you insisting I evidence a negative? I don't understand the sentence above. It does not mean anything intelligible. Probably it is only an attempt to sound scientific. > If you are you are stupid and uneducated to boot. Do you have an academic degree in languages? If not, you are in no position to assess my stupidity or my lack of education. You don't qualify. >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > untested. Thus, it is your job to provide the evidence, not the other > way round. There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only the best explanation for the evidence. The fact is there is no evidence supporting the existence of the good guys in the OT. You are free to believe what you wish but I am not presenting a novel theory. I am presenting a fact. I offer an explanation of that fact and the existence of the OT in Hebrew. What is your explanation for both those facts? >> Are you insisting I evidence a negative? > I don't understand the sentence above. It does not mean anything > intelligible. Probably it is only an attempt to sound scientific. Some 2500 years ago some Greek listed proof of a negative as an impossibility. Did you miss the memo? >> If you are you are stupid and uneducated to boot. > Do you have an academic degree in languages? If not, you are in no > position to assess my stupidity or my lack of education. You don't > qualify. I do have a degree in physics and a career in research and development and as such I am very familiar with the absolute requirement for physical evidence. And you? SignatureHow are Palestinians treated by Jews? Everything but the gas chambers. But there were no gas chambers! Then it is identical. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4029 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 >> The problem is, that the burden of proof is on you. In all scientific >> discussion, the burden of proof is on the one who is presenting a >> novel theory. Your theory of the origins of Hebrew is new and >> untested. Thus, it is your job to provide the evidence, not the other >> way round. > There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only the best > explanation for the evidence. This is true - with the proviso that "the evidence" is shorthand for "all the evidence". You cannot pick and choose which evidence you will accept. > The fact is there is no evidence supporting the existence of the good guys in > the OT. You are free to believe what you wish but I am not presenting a novel > theory. I am presenting a fact. I offer an explanation of that fact and the > existence of the OT in Hebrew. Assuming that "the good guys" is your idiotic expression for "the Jews", your statement is false. You are not presenting a fact, you are presenting a theory - a belief - which is not accepted by any scholar. Even Finkelstein does not reject the Moabite Stone, the Black Obelisk, the Babylonian Chronicle and all the other evidences which have been rehearsed to you and which you reject out of hand. > What is your explanation for both those facts? You are giving no facts, so no explanation is required. > I do have a degree in physics and a career in research and development and as > such I am very familiar with the absolute requirement for physical evidence. Based on the evidence of your postings, I can only assume that your degree was purchased over the internet and your "career" in research and development means that you once experimented with a home-brew kit. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== On Jul 5, 4:50 am, Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com> wrote: > Based on the evidence of your postings, I can only assume that your > degree was purchased over the internet and your "career" in research > and development means that you once experimented with a home-brew kit. The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on his messages show that he often spends several hours around 3 am (Eastern Time) composing his posts. Florida is in the Eastern Time Zone; thus he is quite likely doing this around 3 am every morning. What does that suggest? > On Jul 5, 4:50 am, Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > he is quite likely doing this around 3 am every morning. What does > that suggest? Amphetamine addiction? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” In message <ba8a644a-2ec8-4da6-ba71-5043e1071d08@34g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com> >> Based on the evidence of your postings, I can only assume that your >> degree was purchased over the internet and your "career" in research >> and development means that you once experimented with a home-brew kit. > The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but > does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on his > messages show that he often spends several hours around 3 am (Eastern > Time) composing his posts. Florida is in the Eastern Time Zone; thus > he is quite likely doing this around 3 am every morning. What does > that suggest? A year or so back someone who knows how to do these things looked up the owner of his "giwersworld" domain and found that it was registered to a trailer park somewhere in Florida. Just for fun I looked it up on GoogleEarth and sure enough, it was a rather tatty looking site. As you say, 3 am every morning is pretty conclusive that he is not married (for which we congratulate all the girls in Florida on having taste and discrimination) and suffers from insomnia, probably because he is an unemployed layabout who sleeps all day and sits up drinking and brooding on his nasty nazi fantasies all night. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== > In message <ba8a644a-2ec8-4da6-ba71-5043e1071d08@34g2000hsf.googlegrou > ps.com> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ken Down That is what they call an /ad hominem/ argument. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on his >>> messages show that he often spends several hours around 3 am (Eastern >>> Time) composing his posts. Florida is in the Eastern Time Zone; thus >>> he is quite likely doing this around 3 am every morning. What does >>> that suggest? >> A year or so back someone who knows how to do these things looked up >> the owner of his "giwersworld" domain and found that it was registered >> to a trailer park somewhere in Florida. Just for fun I looked it up on >> GoogleEarth and sure enough, it was a rather tatty looking site. >> As you say, 3 am every morning is pretty conclusive that he is not >> married (for which we congratulate all the girls in Florida on having >> taste and discrimination) and suffers from insomnia, probably because >> he is an unemployed layabout who sleeps all day and sits up drinking >> and brooding on his nasty nazi fantasies all night. > That is what they call an /ad hominem/ argument. Very true - *if* it was arguing anything. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on his [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Ken Down The implied argument(as I am sure you really understand) is that, purely because a person is a drunken, insomniac redneck, no proposition of his can be true. This is false. I do not think you are an idiot. You are a sophist and, at times, quite a subtle one. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> Very true - *if* it was arguing anything. > The implied argument(as I am sure you really understand) is that, purely > because a person is a drunken, insomniac redneck, no proposition of his > can be true. This is false. I do not think you are an idiot. You are > a sophist and, at times, quite a subtle one. If we were talking about any other drunken, insomniac redneck, your claim may well be true. Please remember, however, that we are talking about Mat the Pratt, who lies as naturally as breathing. More naturally, in fact. Ken Down Signature================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS =============== | Australia's premier archaeological magazine | | http://www.diggingsonline.com | ======================================================== >>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>>>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on his [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > can be true. This is false. I do not think you are an idiot. You are > a sophist and, at times, quite a subtle one. Or it could have been simply an observation that explains why Giwer makes the statements (one can hardly call them arguments or propositions since they are not backed by any kind of evidence or reason) he does. >>>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>>>>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps on [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > makes the statements (one can hardly call them arguments or propositions > since they are not backed by any kind of evidence or reason) he does. Then this is, as I said, an /ad hominem/ argument by Frank, not Mr G. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>>>>>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Then this is, as I said, an /ad hominem/ argument by Frank, not Mr G. Only if the argument you say is implied is actually the argument being made. I doubt that it is. >>>>>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but >>>>>>>> does not prove) that he is in Florida (USA), and the timestamps [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Only if the argument you say is implied is actually the argument being > made. I doubt that it is. We'll have to agree to differ on that one. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>>>>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly >>>>>>>>> (but [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> > We'll have to agree to differ on that one. Since you're the only one maintaining that there was an argument there, I'd have to say that that only thing we can agree on, which isn't a difference, that *YOU* see an argument there. No one else does. > > In message <eWick.231353$aE7.199...@newsfe16.ams2> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > because a person is a drunken, insomniac redneck, no proposition of his > can be true. This is false. That might be so. But a person who is demonstrably a drunken, insomniac redneck calls himself a cutting-edge research scientist, it might be justified to doubt his overall credibility. >>> In message <eWick.231353$aE7.199...@newsfe16.ams2> >>>>>> The name in his email provider, "tampabay," indicates strongly (but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > insomniac redneck calls himself a cutting-edge research scientist, it > might be justified to doubt his overall credibility. I can go with that, but that does not negate the fact that the original post was an /ad hominem/ argument. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > That might be so. But a person who is demonstrably a drunken, > > insomniac redneck calls himself a cutting-edge research scientist, it > > might be justified to doubt his overall credibility. > > I can go with that, but that does not negate the fact that the original > post was an /ad hominem/ argument. Saying that again and again doesn't magically turn the original post into an argument. It wasn't one. >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It wasn't one. I think you may have mistaken the post to which I refer. It was from Kendall K Down, and conjecturally characterised Mr G on the basis of the times of his postings. (Hey, my memory is coming back: thanks guys.) SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Kendall K Down, and conjecturally characterised Mr G on the basis of the > times of his postings. (Hey, my memory is coming back: thanks guys.) Then evidently you don't know the meaning of the word "argument." >>>> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> That might be so. But a person who is demonstrably a drunken, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Then evidently you don't know the meaning of the word "argument." I didn't use it. As for my not knowing what it means, my feeling is that you are a teenager coincidentally named Peter Daniels. No adult would make such an inane comment. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message