Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / Archaeology / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
David - 06 Jul 2008 13:33 GMT
By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php

"A chemical examination by Yuval Goren, a
professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University
who specializes in the verification of ancient
artifacts, has been submitted to a peer-review
journal. He declined to give details of his analysis
until publication, but he said that he knew of no
reason to doubt the stone's authenticity."

Comments?

David Christainsen
Jack Linthicum - 06 Jul 2008 14:19 GMT
> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> David Christainsen

But it isn't archaeology.
Peter Alaca - 06 Jul 2008 14:34 GMT
Jack Linthicum wrote, 06/07/2008 15:19:
>> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> But it isn't archaeology.

That's probably why it is "causing a quiet stir in
archaeological circles" :-)
I wonder how many archaeologists ever heard about
this piece of sh ..tone, although "It was found
about a decade ago" and I wonder how many of them
were stirred by it, or ever will be.

Signature

p.a.

David - 06 Jul 2008 18:25 GMT
>...
> But it isn't archaeology.

But it is appropriate for sci.arch.  Ditto for SRQ, SHA.

-----

There is something profoundly wrong in the attitude
of yourself, Peter, and a few other sci.archers but
I am here to make a few changes in people's attitudes.

-----

Please note the pounding Tom, Doug, and Peter took in

"Dr. Thiering refutes a charge of using 'special pleading' to
disregard some C14 data on DSS"

They were discredited because Eric and I had something
on topic to archaeology to say that was new.

David Christainsen
Peter Alaca - 06 Jul 2008 18:30 GMT
David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>> ...
>> But it isn't archaeology.
>
> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

No it isn't

 Ditto for SRQ, SHA.

> -----
>
> There is something profoundly wrong in the attitude
> of yourself, Peter, and a few other sci.archers but
> I am here to make a few changes in people's attitudes.

That's why you have to f* off

> -----
>
> Please note the pounding Tom, Doug, and Peter took in

Huh?
The Kat - 06 Jul 2008 19:28 GMT
>David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>>> ...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>No it isn't

I'd LOVE to know how you cam to that (stupid) conclusion.

Signature

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

             Remove XYZ to email me

David Johnson - 06 Jul 2008 21:45 GMT
>>David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>>>> ...
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I'd LOVE to know how you cam to that (stupid) conclusion.

It's easy: He's stupid...

David

Signature

_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson                          home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

 "Perhaps the whole Animal Rights movement is a vast plot by large
 corporations to eliminate the cost/time 'wasted' by animal testing..."

Eric Stevens - 06 Jul 2008 21:10 GMT
>David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>>> ...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>No it isn't

It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
documentation you are so found of posting.

>  Ditto for SRQ, SHA.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Huh?

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 06 Jul 2008 21:46 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:10:

>> David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>>>> ...
>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>> No it isn't

> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
> documentation you are so found of posting.

The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
and in srq. It is religion.
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 03:45 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:10:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>and in srq. It is religion.

Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
archeology? You gotta be joking!

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 09:34 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:45:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:10:
>>>
>>>> David wrote, 06/07/2008 19:25:
>>>>>> ...

>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>> No it isn't

>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>> and in srq. It is religion.
>
> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
> archeology? You gotta be joking!

Read again what I wrote
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 09:44 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:45:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Read again what I wrote

This is one area where you will evade both the answers and the
questions you are given.

I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
the neck.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 10:16 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 10:44:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:45:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>>>> No it isn't

>>>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>>>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>>>> and in srq. It is religion.

>>> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
>>> archeology? You gotta be joking!
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
> the neck.

> Read again what I wrote
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 20:49 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 10:44:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> > Read again what I wrote

Justify it.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 20:52 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 21:49:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 10:44:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Justify it.

What?
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 23:13 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 21:49:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>What?

What you wrote.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 23:25 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 00:13:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 21:49:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> What you wrote.

What do you mean?
Eric Stevens - 08 Jul 2008 00:42 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 00:13:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>What do you mean?

Justify what you wrote. Demonstrate that it is valid in context.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 00:58 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 01:42:
> Peter Alaca
>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>> Peter Alaca wrote
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't

>>>>>>>>>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>>>>>>>>>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>>>>>>>>>> and in srq. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
>>>>>>>>> archeology? You gotta be joking!

>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>> This is one area where you will evade both the answers and the
>>>>>>> questions you are given.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
>>>>>>> the neck.

>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>> Justify it.

>>>> What?

>>> What you wrote.

>> What do you mean?

> Justify what you wrote. Demonstrate that it is valid in context.

What is "it" and what is the "context"?
You still show no sign that you have read what I wrote,
so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Eric Stevens - 08 Jul 2008 01:10 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 01:42:
>> Peter Alaca
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>You still show no sign that you have read what I wrote,
>so I have no idea what you are talking about.

How about staying quiet until you do?

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 09:13 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 02:10:
>>> Peter Alaca
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>> Peter Alaca wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>>>>>>>>>>>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>>>>>>>>>>>> and in srq. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> archeology? You gotta be joking!

>>>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>>>> This is one area where you will evade both the answers and the
>>>>>>>>> questions you are given.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
>>>>>>>>> the neck.

>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>> Justify it.
>>>>>> What?

>>>>> What you wrote.

>>>> What do you mean?

>>> Justify what you wrote. Demonstrate that it is valid in context.

>> What is "it" and what is the "context"?
>> You still show no sign that you have read what I wrote,
>> so I have no idea what you are talking about.

> How about staying quiet until you do?

How about reading what I wrote an reconsidering your comment?
Eric Stevens - 08 Jul 2008 10:27 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 02:10:
>>>> Peter Alaca
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
>How about reading what I wrote an reconsidering your comment?

How about responding to my numerous comments and questions from early
in the thread which you have been steadfastly ignoring? Unless you do
that I will regard anything you write as a sectarian waste of
bandwidth.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 11:17 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 11:27:
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Alaca wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in srq. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> archeology? You gotta be joking!

>>>>>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>>>>>> This is one area where you will evade both the answers and the
>>>>>>>>>>> questions you are given.
>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
>>>>>>>>>>> the neck.

>>>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>>>> Justify it.

>>>>>>>> What?

>>>>>>> What you wrote.

>>>>>> What do you mean?

>>>>> Justify what you wrote. Demonstrate that it is valid in context.

>>>> What is "it" and what is the "context"?
>>>> You still show no sign that you have read what I wrote,
>>>> so I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>> How about staying quiet until you do?

>> How about reading what I wrote an reconsidering your comment?
>
> How about responding to my numerous comments and questions from early
> in the thread which you have been steadfastly ignoring? Unless you do
> that I will regard anything you write as a sectarian waste of
> bandwidth.

For the record: there is only one earlier comment an no
question in this thread by you (06-07-08 22:10 +2 or
06-07-08 08:10 +1200)
   "It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology
    and supporting documentation you are so found of posting."
After that you ignored what I said. Seven times.
Well done, Eric.

Signature

p.a.

Eric Stevens - 08 Jul 2008 21:33 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 11:27:
>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>After that you ignored what I said. Seven times.
>Well done, Eric.

I have made the following points and asked you the following direct or
indirect questions, all of which you have ignored:

1. It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and
supporting documentation you are so found of posting.

2. Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
archeology? You gotta be joking!

3. From the reminder which Peter Alaca has repeatedly posted:

=======================================
                   *Charter Sci.Archaeology*
=======================================
        1. To exchange information on various concerns
        in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
        hunting, egyptology, typology, **dating**, and other
        related topics.

                                  . . . .
=======================================
                        End of charter
=======================================

*What is archaeology*?

        "Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the human
        past through material culture ....
     
The stone itself seems to fit those criteria at least. However, I
agree that the theological implications of its decipherment is not a
topic for this news group.

4. Are you adopting my argument now?

5. >This is not a touch of religion, this is full blown religion.

What?  The authenticity of the stone and its writings?

OK, you are concerned that the subject of the writing is religious.
Would you feel any differently if it was a shopping list? If so, why?

Your only response to all of these has been to repeatedly recite that
it 'is religion'. You might feel that way but there are a lot of
people who do not. But you want to shut down the discussion and make a
lot of noise in the process.

From now on I'm ignoring you unless you have something worthwhile to
say.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 21:47 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 22:33:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 11:27:
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Alaca wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote,:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't archaeology.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is appropriate for sci.arch.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is consistent with the charter for sci.archaeology and supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation you are so found of posting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stone is, but there is no archaeology in the article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in srq. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining whether the stone is or isn't an ancient artifact isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archeology? You gotta be joking!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one area where you will evade both the answers and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions you are given.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't call you a troll but you are a damned interfering pain in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the neck.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Read again what I wrote

>>>>>>>>>>> Justify it.

>>>>>>>>>> What?

>>>>>>>>> What you wrote.

>>>>>>>> What do you mean?

>>>>>>> Justify what you wrote. Demonstrate that it is valid in context.

>>>>>> What is "it" and what is the "context"?
>>>>>> You still show no sign that you have read what I wrote,
>>>>>> so I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>>>> How about staying quiet until you do?

>>>> How about reading what I wrote an reconsidering your comment?

>>> How about responding to my numerous comments and questions from early
>>> in the thread which you have been steadfastly ignoring? Unless you do
>>> that I will regard anything you write as a sectarian waste of
>>> bandwidth.

>> For the record: there is only one earlier comment an no
>> question in this thread by you (06-07-08 22:10 +2 or
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> people who do not. But you want to shut down the discussion and make a
> lot of noise in the process.

Read what I wrote dammit! You ignored my answer
or you are too stupid to understand it.

> From now on I'm ignoring you unless you have something worthwhile to
> say.

The only solution when evasion doesn't work.
Eric Stevens - 06 Jul 2008 21:07 GMT
>> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>But it isn't archaeology.

From the reminder which Peter Alaca has repeatedly posted:

=======================================
                   *Charter Sci.Archaeology*
=======================================
        1. To exchange information on various concerns
        in archaeology, including method and theory, pot
        hunting, egyptology, typology, **dating**, and other
        related topics.

                                  . . . .
=======================================
                        End of charter
=======================================

*What is archaeology*?

        "Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the human
        past through material culture ....
     

The stone itself seems to fit those criteria at least. However, I
agree that the theological implications of its decipherment is not a
topic for this news group.

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 06 Jul 2008 21:52 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:07:

>>> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> From the reminder which Peter Alaca has repeatedly posted:

It doesnt matter who posts it.

> =======================================
>                     *Charter Sci.Archaeology*
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>                          End of charter
> =======================================

No religion

> *What is archaeology*?
>
>          "Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the human
>          past through material culture ....

No religion.

> The stone itself seems to fit those criteria at least. However, I
> agree that the theological implications of its decipherment is not a
> topic for this news group.

So? Why then your: "It is consistent with the charter for
sci.archaeology and supporting documentation you are so
found of posting."

Looking at the times op posting, you changed your mind
in three minutes. Or depends your opinion on to who you
are talking about?

Signature

p.a.

Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 03:57 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:07:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>No religion

Ooh Boy - Your sore point isn't it?

Are you trying to say that a touch of religion strips away any
archaeological interest from ancient artifacts?

There must be an awful lot of archaeologists slaving away in South
America who will be upset to learn that you don't regard their work as
archaeology.

In fact, you have no qualms about the south american temple
archaeologists. Its only when matters touch on Christianity that you
get all twitchy.

>> *What is archaeology*?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>sci.archaeology and supporting documentation you are so
>found of posting."

Dense, aren't you?

>Looking at the times op posting, you changed your mind
>in three minutes. Or depends your opinion on to who you
>are talking about?

Yep, you really are dense.

Verifying the authenticity and date of the stone and writing is
archaeology.

But, I repeat, "the theological implications of its decipherment is
not a topic for this news group."

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 09:39 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:57:

>> Eric Stevens wrote, 06/07/2008 22:07:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Are you trying to say that a touch of religion strips away any
> archaeological interest from ancient artifacts?

This is not a touch of religion, this is full blown religion.

> There must be an awful lot of archaeologists slaving away in South
> America who will be upset to learn that you don't regard their work as
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> archaeologists. Its only when matters touch on Christianity that you
> get all twitchy.

Nonsense

>>> *What is archaeology*?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dense, aren't you?

>> Looking at the times op posting, you changed your mind
>> in three minutes. Or depends your opinion on to who you
>> are talking?

> Yep, you really are dense.

I asked you some questions.

> Verifying the authenticity and date of the stone and writing is
> archaeology.
>
> But, I repeat, "the theological implications of its decipherment is
> not a topic for this news group."

So I repeat: "Why then your: "It is consistent with the charter for
sci.archaeology and supporting documentation you are so
found of posting.""
The Kat - 07 Jul 2008 12:17 GMT
plonk

Signature

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

             Remove XYZ to email me

Christopher Ingham - 07 Jul 2008 17:46 GMT
> Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:57:
>
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Notwithstanding that the original message was posted by a troll (and I
do try to avoid behaving like a jack-in-the-box in response to his
usual dreck), the subject is of legitimate archaeological interest.
Historians especially, who draw on evidence from many disciplines in
attempting to reconstruct the past (as archaeologists_should_do as
well), will be able to use this document in assessing the historical
conditions surrounding first-century Judah.  The religious
developments of the era are likewise a legitimate topic for scholarly
inquiry.  What people with a religious agenda choose to make of it is
another matter altogether.

The tablet in question allegedly was produced in an era of much
political and religious turmoil in Judah.  Many people expected the
arrival of a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid and  Roman
overlords and establish an independent Jewish kingdom; while others
thought that the messiah would be a charismatic teacher or high
priest.  In the early 1st century BCE a preacher later called the “The
Teacher of Righteousness" was executed whose life prefigured in many
ways that of Jesus' as related in the Christian literature.  Josephus
mentions several messianic pretenders.  The Damascus Document speaks
of two messiahs.  Additional Qumran texts imply that there would be
three messiahs.  And as late as the 2nd century CE there was Simon bar
Kochba.  Jesus' assumption of messianic status (as related in the
literature) was a reenactment of a social and religious drama that had
clear historical precedents.

Christopher Ingham
David - 07 Jul 2008 18:19 GMT
On Jul 7, 12:46 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>...
> Notwithstanding that the original message was posted by a troll (and I
> do try to avoid behaving like a jack-in-the-box in response to his
> usual dreck)...

Your complaint is improper and flagrantly disrespectful.

> In the early 1st century BCE a preacher later called the “The
> Teacher of Righteousness" was executed whose life prefigured in many
> ways that of Jesus' as related in the Christian literature.
>...

You are completely unaware of

Dr. Thiering replies to Dr. Vermes in 1994
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2065

She has an airtight scholarly argument that
Teacher of Righteousness dates to 26 AD.

-----

You are completely unaware of
"Use of Radiocarbon Dating in Assessing Christian
Connections to the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Extracts from the Rodley/Thiering 1999 Radiocarbon paper
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2674

"Two carbondating studies have been made, one by Bonani et
al (1991, 1992) and another by Jull et al (1995 and1996). The
Bonani et al (Zurich) study included only two documents of
direct relevance to the argument for a Christian connection,
but because the whole study provided a good match between
C14 values and paleographical assessments, this led to the
view that the placement of the Teacher in the BCE period on
paleographical grounds had been confirmed.In the case of the
Jull et al. Tucson study, comments made in the reports make
it clear that the study aimed to determine whether the Scrolls
have Christian connections, and it included seven documents
of direct relevance.

The results of both studies have been examined by G. Doudna
of Copenhagen (1998); the present study considers some of
the questions he has raised.………

TABLE 1 Stuiver et. al. (1998) 1 sigma calibrated age ranges
(from Doudna 1998, Table A) , with originally reported (Stuiver
and Pearson (1986)) 1 sigma values given in brackets

Zurich laboratory:

11QT a (Temple Scroll) 53 BCE - 21 CE [ 97 BCE - 1 CE]

1QH (Thanksgiving Scroll) 37 BCE - 68 CE [21 BCE - 61 CE]

Tucson laboratory:

4Q266 4-82 CE [ 5-80 CE]

1QpHab 88-2 BCE [104 - 43 BCE]

1QS 164-144 BCE, or 116 BCE - 50 CE [159 BCE - 20 CE]

4Q258(second sample) 36 BCE - 81 CE [11 BCE - 78 CE]

4Q171 (4QpPs a) 29-81 CE [ 22-78 CE]

4Q521 39 BCE- 66 CE [35 BCE - 59 CE]

4Q267 168 - 51 BCE [172 - 98 BCE]

The most significant change is to the more recent extreme of
the 1 sigma range for a key document, 1QpHab. The
relevance of this change is considered in more detail below."

David Christainsen
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 18:40 GMT
David wrote, 07/07/2008 19:19:
> On Jul 7, 12:46 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Your complaint is improper and flagrantly disrespectful.

And righly so

>>  In the early 1st century BCE a preacher later called the “The
>> Teacher of Righteousness" was executed whose life prefigured in many
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> She has an airtight scholarly argument that
> Teacher of Righteousness dates to 26 AD.

Which has nothing to do with dating a stone
David - 07 Jul 2008 20:44 GMT
> David wrote, 07/07/2008 19:19:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> And righly so

And unrightly so.

> >>  In the early 1st century BCE a preacher later called the “The
> >> Teacher of Righteousness" was executed whose life prefigured in many
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Which has nothing to do with dating a stone

Nobody said that it does.

-----

Please note how Christopher was effectively
refuted on what century in which the DSS
Teacher of Righteousness appeared.  Christopher's
misinformation had to be answered immediately
and I want sci.archers to know about it as well.

David Christainsen
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 20:55 GMT
>David wrote, 07/07/2008 19:19:
>> On Jul 7, 12:46 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Which has nothing to do with dating a stone

Are you adopting my argument now?

Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 18:38 GMT
Christopher Ingham wrote, 07/07/2008 18:46:
>> Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:57:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
> do try to avoid behaving like a jack-in-the-box in response to his
> usual dreck), the subject is of legitimate archaeological interest.

Not the subject, only the dating of the stone.
But where is the information about the dating of
thats stone? and where is the discussion about
the dating if that stone?
Naming an unknown stone in a 100% religious article
doesn't make it of archaeological interest.

> Historians especially, who draw on evidence from many disciplines in
> attempting to reconstruct the past (as archaeologists_should_do as
> well),

No. Archaeology is the study of physical remains.
Nothing to do with imagined messiahses and resurections.

> [...]

Signature

p.a.

Jack Linthicum - 07 Jul 2008 19:43 GMT
On Jul 7, 12:46 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:57:
>
[quoted text clipped - 113 lines]
>
> Christopher Ingham

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=850657

An article from 2007 in Haaretz discusses this stone and the dating of
the text and the possible/probable person described therein.

also an abstract of the Cathedra article

Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elitzur

Document: A First-Century BCE Prophetic Text Written on a Stone: First
Publication

This is the first publication of a Hebrew inscription of 87 lines,
written in ink on a large stone. Its precise provenance is unknown.
The text is arranged in two columns, similar to the columns in a Torah
scroll, and is written in a ‘Jewish’ script of the late first century
BCE resembling the script evidenced in Qumran scrolls; however, its
contents and style are different. The text contains a verse from the
biblical book of Haggai, with minor changes, and expressions from
Zechariah and Daniel. It also contains expressions from later Jewish
literary sources, such as Hechalot literature, Piyyut, Talmud, and
Midrash, as well as some that have no parallels elsewhere. Due to its
bad condition, the inscription is difficult to interpret, but the
expression which may be translated as ‘thus said YHWH, the God of
armies, the God of Israel’ appears many times, with slight variations,
similarly to expressions in biblical prophecies, and the name
Jerusalem is mentioned several times. The text is written in the first
person, the speaker identifying himself as ‘I, Gabriel’, probably
referring to the angel by this name. It seems that the composer of the
text belonged to the supporters of the Davidic dynasty and may have
been addressing his opponents. However, since no similar text has been
discovered to date, it is difficult to determine its precise nature.
Eric Stevens - 07 Jul 2008 20:53 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 07/07/2008 04:57:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>This is not a touch of religion, this is full blown religion.

What?  The authenticity of the stone and its writings?

OK, you are concerned that the subject of the writing is religious.
Would you feel any differently if it was a shopping list? If so, why?

>> There must be an awful lot of archaeologists slaving away in South
>> America who will be upset to learn that you don't regard their work as
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Nonsense

Look at the record.

>>>> *What is archaeology*?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>I asked you some questions.

And I have asked you many questions which you have determinedly
ignored. After setting that example why should you expect any better
treatment from me?

>> Verifying the authenticity and date of the stone and writing is
>> archaeology.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>sci.archaeology and supporting documentation you are so
>found of posting.""

Eric Stevens
Yowie - 06 Jul 2008 22:53 GMT
> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Comments?

"I wouldn't have believed it either, Meryl, unless I'd seen it with my own
eyes, but Jesus, Mary & Joseph, we were just about to test them out when
BAM! his viagra caught fire"

Sorry David, couldn't resist (the tablet igniting gave me a funny thought)

Yowie
David - 07 Jul 2008 02:43 GMT
>...
> "I wouldn't have believed it either, Meryl, unless I'd seen it with my own
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Yowie

Did you know that the real Jesus was an extremely
funny guy?  For him to walk on water, turn water
into wine, and raise people from the dead is a scream.

It's the symbolic, spiritual meaning of his resurrection
that is serious IMHO.

Peace,
Dave

P.S.
Sorry, no archaeology from me this time but you
can't squeeze blood out of a stone (tablet).
Matt Giwer - 07 Jul 2008 04:19 GMT
> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Comments?

        The following names are applied to local variations of a single
goddess, Ishtar, Isis, Ashara, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus. These are the same
not just by name similarity but because the fundamental myths about them are
variations upon the same story. The same applies to the male gods.

        The following names are applied to local variations of a single god,
Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Mithras and as we shall see, Jesus. Under the
first five names legend attributes him great physical beauty and hunting
skills. Jesus by tradition had perfect physical form and was a fisher of
men.

        In the Hebrew bible the first commandment reads "I Adoni am your
god." Adoni is the word translated as lord in the Christian version. In
Greek Adon is lord. The oldest known version of the Old Testament is the
Greek Septuagint.  When the Hebrew version was created it kept the Adoni as
the name of the god for some of the books although it generally defaults to
Yahweh Elohim. Yahweh is translated into lord in English and Elohim as the
singular god although it clearly has the plural suffix, im.

        Yahweh and Ashara are a pair of deities found in the records of
Ugarit. An inscription referring to Yahweh and his Ashara has been found in
bibleland.

        Adonis is the husband of Venus. In this imagining Adonis is the son
of King Cinyras and either the king's daughter, Myrrha, or Astarte herself.
Astarte as Venus falls in love with Adonis. Mars becomes jealous of Adonis,
turns into a boar and kills Adonis. Venus travels to Hades (he descended in
to hell) to retrieve him. Pluto's wife is also in love with him and they
agree each will have him half the year. Venus gets the summer so this is
celebrated on the Vernal Equinox as is Easter, the name Easter coming from
Ishtar.

        It takes Astarte two days to broker this deal so he can be
resurrected. This explains the reason Christians insist upon three days in
the tomb -- from old testament prophecy -- while having only two calendar
days between death and resurrection which is from existing religious custom.

        The Egyptian imagining of this story has Amun, Isis, Osiris and Set
as the main players. Amun is the chief god of Egypt who made the first men
out of clay. He was portrayed with the head of a ram, thus the Shofar horn.
He came before the other gods as does Adoni in the first commandment.

        Plutarch, in his Lives ("Alcibiades," XVIII), speaking of the
sailing of the Greek fleet for Syracuse in the year 415 B.C., says: "It was
an evil omen that the festival of Adonis fell in those days. Numbers of
women bore images, like dead bodies, and held mock funerals; and they
mourned and chanted the solemn hymns."

        Thus the festival of Adonis was well established at least four
centuries before the earliest incarnation of the Jesus story. The story
itself is much older. The Egyptian imagining is found on much older wall
inscriptions.

        Most Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity which holds
Yahweh and Jesus are the exactly the same god for this reason. One wonders
if Ishtar is the Holy Spirit which connects the two names -- an eternal love
triangle so to speak. The Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove. Ashara's
symbol was primarily the tree but also the dove.

        The name Easter comes from the goddess Ishtar the wife of Adonis
under the name of Attis. This is a vernal equinox celebration.

        BYT YHWH and BYT STRT both refer to buildings in Jerusalem. They are
translated as Temple of Yahweh, YaHWeH, and Temple of Astarte, aSTaRTe.
Idols of Astarte and of the divine pair, Astarte and Yahweh, are found at
all levels in Jerusalem and around Judea. They abruptly stop appearing in
Jerusalem after Judeans (Iodiminae, commonly translated as Jews in English)
are forbidden to enter Jerusalem by Hadrian.

        It is reported her temple there had eight sides suggesting the grand
mosque on the so-called temple mount was built on the foundation of her
temple. Or perhaps it was merely renovated.

        The Christian story of Jesus is simply another imagining of the
common tale.  Consider it a puritanical version leaving out the explicit
sex.

=====

        Spare the rod and spoil the child.
        Spare the flail and spoil the child.
        Thy flail and they staff do comfort me.

Image of King of Egypt with crossed arms and symbols.

=====

        Purim is a classic Cinderella tale which comes in many forms some of
which are barely recognizable from the Disney version. Esther, a variation
on Ishtar from which we get Easter, is set in the last of the known
civilized world to the east where both the sun and Venus/Ishtar also rise.

=====

        Far from being devoid of Vernal Equinox celebrations, the prophet
Mohamed was born close enough to it in some calendar that it does not
matter. The odd thing is male rather than female. Likely it replaced the
birth of some female deity.

=====

        The story of Job is a dialog between Amun/Yahweh and Ra/Lucifer.

=====

        Angels, aka messengers, are depicted as having wings as the ancients
gods used birds as messengers. The most commonly used bird was an owl, a
bird that appears to be standing upright when it perches. This is why angels
are depicted as having wings.

=====

        Powerful rulers claimed to be gods in those days which seems
incongruous to us with our idea of God. But people did not expect much from
any particular god in the old days.

        The claim to being a god was most commonly base upon the power of
life and death. The gods sent a angels, messengers, of death. Kings ordered
their messengers to kill. Also gods did not bring the dead back to life so
neither was that a requirement for kings. Similarly gods did not bring
inanimate objects to life so that was no expected of kings. Each god had
different powers (like the X-Men) and most were simply influential without
the power to force so a king did not have to do more than influence.

=====

        The Apis Bull of Egypt was selected as one being completely black
except of a single white mark between its horns. It was not sacrificed and
was connected with the patron god of Memphis.

        Jews connect a heifer with the arrival of their Messiah. It must be
completely red. It is intended for sacrifice. It is possibly connected with
the patron god of Jerusalem.

=====

Signature

If Zionism were Judaism antisemitism would be a moral imperative.
    -- The Iron Webmaster, 4035
 http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7

Kendall K Down - 07 Jul 2008 12:38 GMT
> BYT YHWH and BYT STRT both refer to buildings in Jerusalem. They are
> translated as Temple of Yahweh, YaHWeH, and Temple of Astarte, aSTaRTe.
> Idols of Astarte and of the divine pair, Astarte and Yahweh, are found at
> all levels in Jerusalem and around Judea. They abruptly stop appearing in
> Jerusalem after Judeans (Iodiminae, commonly translated as Jews in English)
> are forbidden to enter Jerusalem by Hadrian.

I believe that the only words in the above which are not deliberate
lies and demonstrably false are the words "and" and "to".

The rest is Matt the Pratt's usual nonsense, posted without regard to
relevancy or truth.

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
Elijahovah - 07 Jul 2008 13:05 GMT
Your claims at proper interpretation of myth are those of a person
who
beleives all things should be explained without God. Explaining things
with God does not mean to fabricate miracles and fantasy. And for
archeologists and scientists who accuse the belief of God as being the
myth-side and fabricated side of life, they ignore how much supposed
science is fabricated myth. Such persons who fabricate sci-fi rely on
their claim that God is myth so that their myths of science can be
claimed
as their own interpretation. Such know-all scholars will force single
interpretations on words such as Osiris or Adonis etc.
Osiris merely means reborn, the moon gets reborn, the sun gets reborn,
planets like Saturn are reborn and the true astronomy is what
determines
what is referred to. If it is reborn in 3 days it is the moon. If it
is reborn
in one day it is the sun, though religion has altered it to honoring
the
3rd day or 3 days after solstice. But that is why when astronomy goes
false it is then called a false religion (astrology).

(quoted)       Adonis is the husband of Venus. In this imagining
Adonis is the son
of King Cinyras and either the king's daughter, Myrrha, or Astarte
herself.
Astarte as Venus falls in love with Adonis. Mars becomes jealous of
Adonis,
turns into a boar and kills Adonis. Venus travels to Hades (he
descended in
to hell) to retrieve him. Pluto's wife is also in love with him and
they
agree each will have him half the year. Venus gets the summer so this
is
celebrated on the Vernal Equinox as is Easter, the name Easter coming
from
Ishtar.        It takes Astarte two days to broker this deal so he can
be
resurrected. This explains the reason Christians insist upon three
days in
the tomb -- from old testament prophecy -- while having only two
calendar
days between death and resurrection which is from existing religious
custom.

As for Venus her LORD (adonis) is Mars (known as Damuzi or Tamuz
which is an abbreviation of Tau of Damuzi). But this does not take
away the fact
that so many flags bear the crescent moon reborn beside Venus.
Easter is fixed to spring equinox only because Jesus said he was the
morning star Venus (rising morningstar). Venus has five points of
rising
and those points rotate in 243 years so that you cannot claim Venus
has
one point such as vernal equinox as its rebirth. The most profound
date
for a rising Venus is Jan 6 which in 2000 BC was winter solstice not
vernal equinox. The significance of a rising Mar 20 Venus comes from
834 BC when Toth 1 new year was March 20. This is because in 936 years
of 365 days Venus is 585 x 584 days, and Mars is 438x 780 days.
If you wonder where this 936 years comes from it has passed from
Egypt and Hamurabi of 1770 BC down to the Maya of Copan in 1314 BC.
The year 2256 requires 3744 to total 6000 years, and 3744 is divisible
by
936 four times, and by 312 twelve times...
as in 312 BC and the Magi and 312 AD. Due to our mistakes it no longer
adds up to 624 years, but the marks of those years are specific
crossings
or Tau or Tamuz as well as venus as the sign of the Cross in the
stars.

Someone posted in BAS (Biblical Archeology Society forum) about this
tablet of 3 day resurrection. This was my reply.
A messiah tablet already exists from 2000 BC its called Osiris the
reborn from the dead. It refers to 3 days the moon takes to pass the
sun as death to absence to rise every 30 days. And its the main reason
for 1000 years they said Jesus died at 30 six months after he was
baptized at 30.

So it is also why they said he died in 30 AD of which
later when Beasus of Liebana said it was 5200 years from
Adam too Christ (he meant Christ's birth) but the numbers
totalled to 5227 years which puts Christ in 27 AD.
This was excused as no error of 27 AD as Christ birth
but rather as an excuse to say he was born in 4 BC.
It was still just 30 years because the 33 years came back
with the Protestant movement and the half week of
Daniel's 70 weeks.

So Hebrew text of Savior's rising from the dead in 3 days
can date anywhere for 2000 years of BC because it is
Egyptian prophecy of the moon which is claimed to come from
Ur of Chaldea. That reborn moon of 30 days is also
likened to an Osiris Saturn or reborn Saturn whose orbit is
30 years. Thus the Saturnalia is not the sun but the planet.
However, there are three zodiac points to claim as the
counter of orbits. Regulus rules or counts orbits as the orbits
pass that star of Leo. But there is also the horns,
those of Capricorn and those of Taurus.
Taurus stands like a chicken wish bone slingshot on the
west horizon for sunset. Where as Capricorn actually
has a middle star between horns that planets cross.
This is why the Capricorn Saturnalia gets mistaken for the sun
which meets winter solstice 30 times in 30 years
for the one time you wait for Saturn to get there.
So much for Jesus dying for 3 days when he is 30 years old.

Meanwhile Saturn measures the 177 years of Ur as
six orbits instead of 180 years. Just like the moon whose six orbits
is 177 days not 180 days. Times 10 is 1770 years instead of
1800 years. This is confused with what was called the 600-year
calendar (3x600) which is actually half-cycles of 1200-year Venus.
Another confusion because 1200 egyptian years of 365 days
for Venus is only 1199 Julian years.
Meanwhile the 1770 years BC for Jesus as 60 orbits of Saturn
are proven by astronomy programs to be only 1768 years.
So if they count from 1770 BC then they end in 2 BC.
So basically the predicting that the bible does is all
about Chaldean astronomers from Ur figuring out the
real years, the real seasons, trying to prevent famine,
to feed people, keep from starving, and create calendars
that will accurately save people and prevent death.
They are ideal analogies for a coming savior.
Especially when the worst that can happen to a planet
is one of those stars falls and hits the Earth.
So there is a balance between obsession of far distant
future as the sun burning out in 40 billion years,
and the past whether man is the same millions of years
that the Earth is, while close past and close future
gets ignored. And the future becomes blurred by
astrology (false astronomy), and  the past becomes such
a fuss that it doesnt get used to see our near future.
BUT all of this sort of merges all the real origins of all
our beliefs, jewish christian pagan saviors from death,
better life, and the end we must face to live.

So what i have learned is Christ was killed.
Raised in 3 days. Visited as a descended one from
heaven for 40 days so that we recall that Noah our Savior
died on Dec 24 of 2021 BC and that it was for 40 days that
the spirit Xisuthros lied and said he was Noah raised to heaven
on Chinese date Feb 2 of 2020 BC. Unfortunately the Venus
in Aquarius of this date is past greatest elongation as is not the
rising reborn Venus in Aquarius of 40 days during the Flood
(2369 BC Jan 6).
So in conclusion the bride will now be killed this year, as
many as 10,000 in a single death, she will rise immediately,
and in flesh will apear descended from heaven for 40 days
to only those of her church, and then the rock cut from
heaven strikes the Earth producing the fire, and in 7 days
bringing the ocean plates back up as it did for Noah
(hopefully not the same 11,000 feet it did in 2370 BC)
because alot of people only have 6000 foot mountains around.
jerry warner - 07 Jul 2008 05:05 GMT
OT abuse complaint filed.
The freeloader uses Google of course!!

Path:

news4.newsguy.com!extra.newsguy.com!postnews.google.com!z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

                  From:
                        David <pchristainsen@yahoo.com>
             Newsgroups:
                        soc.history.ancient, soc.religion.quaker,
sci.archaeology
                 Subject:
                        Tablet ignites debate on messiah and
resurrection
                   Date:
                        Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
            Organization:
                        http://groups.google.com
                  Lines:
                        15
            Message-ID:

<364b8c80-cda7-404c-8ffc-aaa24999964b@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
      NNTP-Posting-Host:
                        75.69.177.218
           Mime-Version:
                        1.0
           Content-Type:
                        text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
                        7bit
                X-Trace:
                        posting.google.com 1215347611 22723 127.0.0.1
(6 Jul 2008 12:33:31 GMT)
         X-Complaints-To:
                        groups-abuse@google.com
      NNTP-Posting-Date:
                        Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC)
           Complaints-To:
                        groups-abuse@google.com
            Injection-Info:
                        z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=75.69.177.218;

posting-account=jeueCAoAAAA-oidRvxIxsYcy3Er0T1HR
             User-Agent:
                        G2/1.0
      X-HTTP-UserAgent:
                        Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT
6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC
                        5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
                   Xref:
                        news4.newsguy.com soc.history.ancient:468911
soc.religion.quaker:258510 sci.archaeology:414634
        X-Received-Date:
                        Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:33:31 EDT (beV3)

> By Ethan Bronner Published: July 5, 2008
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/05/africa/06stone.php
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> David Christainsen
The Kat - 07 Jul 2008 12:16 GMT
>OT abuse complaint filed.
>The freeloader uses Google of course!!

You are an a.s.

Signature

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

             Remove XYZ to email me

Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 13:10 GMT
The Kat wrote, 07/07/2008 13:16:

>> OT abuse complaint filed.
>> The freeloader uses Google of course!!
>
> You are an a.s.

You are a hole
Tom McDonald - 07 Jul 2008 14:31 GMT
> OT abuse complaint filed.

The article is not off-topic in any of the three groups to which
it was posted.

Your complaint is improper, as it is not based on the content of
the article, but rather on your view of the person who posted it.

> The freeloader uses Google of course!!

That is irrelevant.

> Path:
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>
>> David Christainsen
LloydB - 07 Jul 2008 16:05 GMT
> > OT abuse complaint filed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> That is irrelevant.

There has been NO discussion of the dating matters,
nothing about the chemical or other means used or to
be used, nothing about the context in which the physical
tablet (about which we're told effectively nothing) was
found.

I could tell you more about an old grinding stone picked
up at a local estate sale.  (The stone also has no specific
context, but mercifully, it has no imagined religious
connotations either.)

Peter will rightly argue that posting about my stone isn't
archaeology.  Eric will, as always, say it's an artifact and
therefore not OT, etc.  Been there, read that, bought the 'T'.

On the other hand... with the present thread the responses
directed at the tablet are the usual fallout of religious patoots,
posting uninformed twaddle.  Otherwise we have the now
customary interchange of acrimony.

Yep, that's what David likes, and that's what sci.arch keeps
providing.  But sorry, Tom, it's not archaeology.  David has
once again been allowed to fart in the elevator and get away
with it.

[Posted to sci.arch only]
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 16:33 GMT
LloydB wrote, 07/07/2008 17:05:

>>> OT abuse complaint filed.

>> The article is not off-topic in any of the three groups to which
>> it was posted.
>>
>> Your complaint is improper, as it is not based on the content of
>> the article, but rather on your view of the person who posted it.

>>> The freeloader uses Google of course!!
>> That is irrelevant.

> There has been NO discussion of the dating matters,
> nothing about the chemical or other means used or to
> be used, nothing about the context in which the physical
> tablet (about which we're told effectively nothing) was
> found.

In a three page article.

> I could tell you more about an old grinding stone picked
> up at a local estate sale.  (The stone also has no specific
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Peter will rightly argue that posting about my stone isn't
> archaeology.

I don't know. Sometimes without context there still
is typology to discuss.

> Eric will, as always, say it's an artifact and
> therefore not OT, etc.  Been there, read that, bought the 'T'.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Yep, that's what David likes, and that's what sci.arch keeps
> providing.  But sorry, Tom, it's not archaeology.

That is what Tom said.

> David has
> once again been allowed to fart in the elevator and get away
> with it.
>
> [Posted to sci.arch only]

Right.

Signature

p.a.

Tom McDonald - 07 Jul 2008 16:47 GMT
>>> OT abuse complaint filed.
>> The article is not off-topic in any of the three groups to which
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> tablet (about which we're told effectively nothing) was
> found.

There has been no discussion of the dating because, as you
correctly point out below, we have seen the (sadly) normal
devolution of the thread into meta-communications. While this is
(again, sadly) predictable, that fact does not make the OP
off-topic. It merely makes it predictably unfruitful.

> I could tell you more about an old grinding stone picked
> up at a local estate sale.  (The stone also has no specific
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> posting uninformed twaddle.  Otherwise we have the now
> customary interchange of acrimony.

Yup, I know. As I noted, that was predictable.

However, my point was that Jerry's abuse complaint was
inappropriate. David posts many articles that would deserve such
a complaint; just not this one.

I simply think that justice demands an accurate target.

> Yep, that's what David likes, and that's what sci.arch keeps
> providing.  But sorry, Tom, it's not archaeology.  David has
> once again been allowed to fart in the elevator and get away
> with it.

True dat.

Sadly, David is almost certain to take my posts in this thread as
some sort of vindication, or at least as me taking his side in
some more general way. Needless to say, that's not the case.

> [Posted to sci.arch only]
David - 08 Jul 2008 00:31 GMT
> >>> OT abuse complaint filed.
> >> The article is not off-topic in any of the three groups to which
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> (again, sadly) predictable, that fact does not make the OP
> off-topic. It merely makes it predictably unfruitful.

Ha’aretz has a summary -

By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999719.html

> > I could tell you more about an old grinding stone picked
> > up at a local estate sale.  (The stone also has no specific
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> True dat.

Profoundly untrue.

> Sadly, David is almost certain to take my posts in this thread as
> some sort of vindication, or at least as me taking his side in
> some more general way. Needless to say, that's not the case.
>...

On the contrary I never did anything of the sort for a
single second.

David Christainsen
David - 07 Jul 2008 18:05 GMT
>...
> Yep, that's what David likes, and that's what sci.arch keeps
> providing.  But sorry, Tom, it's not archaeology.  David has
> once again been allowed to fart in the elevator and get away
> with it.
>...

This time you have stuck your nose where it does not
belong.

Other people will tell you to stay out of the discussion
and keep your flagrant disrespect of me to yourself.

Do not have a nice day.

David Christainsen
The Real Doctor - 07 Jul 2008 18:17 GMT
> Other people will tell you to stay out of the discussion
> and keep your flagrant disrespect of me to yourself.

"Obsessive" and "unreliable" - Barbara Thiering on David Christainsen.

Ian
David - 07 Jul 2008 20:38 GMT
> > Other people will tell you to stay out of the discussion
> > and keep your flagrant disrespect of me to yourself.
>
> "Obsessive" and "unreliable" - Barbara Thiering on David Christainsen.
>
> Ian

However, Barbara did not take personal responsibility
to examine the bulk of my messages, which very
largely quote her verbatim.  So, no obsessiveness
and no unreliability.

Thus, Ian spreads untruth and he knows it.

David Christainsen
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 18:42 GMT
David wrote, 07/07/2008 19:05:
>> ...
>> Yep, that's what David likes, and that's what sci.arch keeps
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> This time you have stuck your nose where it does not
> belong.

Stick your head where it belongs. There where
no light ever shines.
Hayabusa - 07 Jul 2008 21:30 GMT
I'd rather have diarrhea than hear about a messiah. Go away.

Hayabusa
Peter Alaca - 07 Jul 2008 22:00 GMT
Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
> I'd rather have diarrhea than hear about a messiah. Go away.
>
> Hayabusa
Christopher Ingham - 08 Jul 2008 17:00 GMT
> Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Evidently one had better not attempt in this newsgroup to discuss any
archaeology from cultures which also have recorded histories, for then
our smug and insular scientists become mute or get all twitchy (and
loose-boweled) because they have no knowledge of or interest in
history, paleography, and other fields which can and should be brought
to bear in helping to more accurately contextualize the physical
remains.  If you're not interested in the human societies you are
examining other than through the methodologies for which you are
trained, at least refrain from advertising your parochial and
unprofessional attitudes.

Christopher Ingham
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 17:46 GMT
Christopher Ingham wrote, 08/07/2008 18:00:
>> Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Evidently one had better not attempt in this newsgroup to discuss any
> archaeology from cultures which also have recorded histories,

Nonsense. Messiah and Resurrection are not history.
it is religion

> for then
> our smug and insular scientists become mute or get all twitchy (and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Christopher Ingham
Eric Stevens - 08 Jul 2008 21:22 GMT
>Christopher Ingham wrote, 08/07/2008 18:00:
>>> Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Nonsense. Messiah and Resurrection are not history.
>it is religion

Its history.

Its only religion if you choose to make it so.

> > for then
>> our smug and insular scientists become mute or get all twitchy (and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> Christopher Ingham

Eric Stevens
Norah_J - 08 Jul 2008 21:32 GMT
>>Christopher Ingham wrote, 08/07/2008 18:00:
>>>> Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Eric Stevens

Eric as you know I usually don't agree with Peter A, but if you can't give
very good reasons for this to be both history and archaeology, I guess I
have to for once...

Inger E
Peter Alaca - 08 Jul 2008 21:35 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 22:22:

>> Christopher Ingham wrote, 08/07/2008 18:00:
>>>> Hayabusa wrote, 07/07/2008 22:30:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather have diarrhea than hear about a messiah. Go away.
>>>>> Hayabusa

-
>>> Evidently one had better not attempt in this newsgroup to discuss any
>>> archaeology from cultures which also have recorded histories,
>> Nonsense. Messiah and Resurrection are not history.
>> it is religion

> Its history.

The bible is history??

> Its only religion if you choose to make it so.

You must be out of your mind.
Eric Stevens - 09 Jul 2008 03:02 GMT
>Eric Stevens wrote, 08/07/2008 22:22:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>You must be out of your mind.

Once again you display the narrowness of your focus. This has nothing
to with any of the very many versions of the bible. The bible has no
relevance to this.

What may be relevant are the artifacts which relate to the bible or
the artifacts from which the stories of the bible are derived. Study
of these artifacts is archaeology. Study of the history of the
artifacts and the people associated with them is history. You can if
you like study the artifacts from the point of view of religion but
there is no compulsion for you to do so.

It does not follow that if one does not study the artifacts from the
point of view of religion it is not possible to study them at all.
Your mistake is your apparent _belief_ that it is not possible to
discuss the archaeology or the history of these artifacts without
discussing religion at the same time.

Eric Stevens
Kendall K Down - 09 Jul 2008 07:56 GMT
> Nonsense. Messiah and Resurrection are not history.
> it is religion

<tongue-in-cheek>Surely that depends on whether or not the
Resurrection actually happened? *Anything* which happened in the past
is history.</tongue-in-cheek>

Ken Down

Signature

================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.