PBS: More fake bible "Evidence"

JTEM

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 9:03:26 PM10/13/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

So I'm watching PBS' "Egypt's Golden Empire"
on Netflix...

To tell you the truth, I had seen it before and don't
recall being too impressed with it, but that some
a while ago so I thought that I'd give it another shot.
And I'm glad I did.

Imagine this: They claim that the account of the
battle of Megiddo, as left by Tutmosis III, leaves us
with history's first mention of "Israel."

But it doesn't exist. There is no mention of any
"Israel" left by Tutmosis III (nor any other Egyption
king for that matter), not even a name misrepresented
as "Israel" as in the case of Merneptah and the
"Victory Stele."

...so I guess we can't call it a "Fake," because it
doesn't exist! There was nothing "Faked."

Oh well...

SolomonW

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 11:16:33 PM10/13/12

to

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:03:26 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> Imagine this: They claim that the account of the
> battle of Megiddo, as left by Tutmosis III, leaves us
> with history's first mention of "Israel."
>
> But it doesn't exist. There is no mention of any
> "Israel" left by Tutmosis III (nor any other Egyption
> king for that matter), not even a name misrepresented
> as "Israel" as in the case of Merneptah and the
> "Victory Stele."

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

A good idea is to check before accepting a TV evidence as true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 1:17:24 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

I made it clear: The TV "Evidence" doesn't exist, it's
not even up to the standards of the fake Merneptah
"Evidence."

As I've asked numerous times: Please explain in
plain English the legitimate, archaeology-based
evidence for claiming that the word found on the
Merneptah stele should be interpreted as "Israel."

NOTE: I did not ask for a head count. I don't care
if the interpretation is popular, or who agrees with it.
I'm asking you to spell out in no uncertain terms the
legitimate, archaeological-based reasons for the
interpretation.

I want the argument.

HINT: There isn't one.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 2:13:27 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

what do you mean by "archaelogically based".

it transcribes <ys^r'l> quite accurately. the only objection is that
it uses Old Egyptian /z/ whereas by that time it had become [s].

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 4:23:10 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

if you mean archaeological evidence of Israelites contemporary with
the Merneptah Stele, that's not going to happen, since the inscription
itself has the determinative sign for "nomadic people" rather than
"country". so one would not expect to find arcaheological evidence for
a nomadic people for that time.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 5:00:01 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > NOTE: I did not ask for a head count. I don't care
> > if the interpretation is popular, or who agrees with it.
> > I'm asking you to spell out in no uncertain terms the
> > legitimate, archaeological-based reasons for the
> > interpretation.
>
> what do you mean by "archaelogically based".

#1. Everyone (including you) agrees that it does not
say "Israel," that it is INTERPRETED as "Israel."

#2. There is no basis for this "Interpretation." It appears
nowhere else in Egyptian history -- before or sense --
and when the name "Israel" does supposedly appear next
it's a completely different word, found in a completely
different culture, hundreds of miles away and hundreds
of years later.

It's not like we can say, "Well, whenever they referred to
Israel they used this word, so we know it's Israel."

They never used the word before or since. It doesn't
say "Israel" and there is nothing to so much as hint that
it should be considered "Israel."

> it transcribes <ys^r'l>

No, that is one way that it is popularly transcribed, but
hardly the only way. In fact, there are many ways!

One of the first transliterations I saw read:

AJSRJAR(W)

This was from an Egyptologist who identified it as the
name of a Libyan tribe...

The Wiki article at one time listed a number of the
transliterations, but it has since bent over and spread
them for the bible nuts...

> quite accurately. the only objection is

Strangely, if you go back and check, you will find
that I never asked about objections. In fact, I
specifically asked for the argument(s) in favor to
be detailed for us.

You have not done that.

You've simply offered a potential transliteration,
assured us that it is popular and left it at that.

You never even attempted to explain HOW they
make the leap from "ysrl" to "Israel" -- let alone
why, and let alone explain where this "L" is
coming from in a language that has no "L".

You certainly implied that there was somehow
only one single transliteration, and never so
much as addressed why this one transliteration
should be chosen over the others...

....never mind why we should then leap to
interpreting this transliteration as a failed attempt
at "Israel."

Again, the challenge here is to spell out the
legitimate reasons for interpreting the word as
"Israel," and their archaeological basis.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 5:31:11 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Oct 14, 5:00 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > NOTE: I did not ask for a head count. I don't care
> > > if the interpretation is popular, or who agrees with it.
> > > I'm asking you to spell out in no uncertain terms the
> > > legitimate, archaeological-based reasons for the
> > > interpretation.
>
> > what do you mean by "archaelogically based".
>
> #1. Everyone (including you) agrees that it does not
> say "Israel," that it is INTERPRETED as "Israel."
>
> #2. There is no basis for this "Interpretation." It appears
> nowhere else in Egyptian history -- before or sense --

because they were a minor people at the time, that part does
contradict the Biblical account.

> and when the name "Israel" does supposedly appear next
> it's a completely different word, found in a completely
> different culture, hundreds of miles away and hundreds
> of years later.
>

later it appears appears in Canaan, where one expects it to be, and in
the Stele it appears in a Canaanite context also.

> It's not like we can say, "Well, whenever they referred to
> Israel they used this word, so we know it's Israel."
>
> They never used the word before or since. It doesn't
> say "Israel" and there is nothing to so much as hint that
> it should be considered "Israel."
>
> > it transcribes <ys^r'l>
>
> No, that is one way that it is popularly transcribed, but

the above form is the Hebrew / Canaanite form, the consonantal. it's
not a popular transcription, it is an accurate transcription.

> hardly the only way. In fact, there are many ways!
>
> One of the first transliterations I saw read:
>
> AJSRJAR(W)
>

yes, that is the transliteration of the Egyptian word, except for the
intial <A> which is not present in the inscription, <J> represents the
semivowel y

> This was from an Egyptologist who identified it as the
> name of a Libyan tribe...
>

reference?

> The Wiki article at one time listed a number of the
> transliterations, but it has since bent over and spread
> them for the bible nuts...
>
> > quite accurately. the only objection is
>
> Strangely, if you go back and check, you will find
> that I never asked about objections. In fact, I
> specifically asked for the argument(s) in favor to
> be detailed for us.
>

the argument in favor is deconstructing those against.

some tried to argue for Jezreel Hebrew Yizre`'el "God soweth" but that
has a voiced pharyngeal fricative (`Ayin) that is not in the
inscription and Egyptian would have included that, though it make a
good pun with "his seed is no more".

> You have not done that.
>
> You've simply offered a potential transliteration,
> assured us that it is popular and left it at that.
>
> You never even attempted to explain HOW they
> make the leap from "ysrl" to "Israel" -- let alone

y*sh*r'l (there is a glottal stop in between; s^ sin is not
distinguished from *sh* *sh*in in the NW Semitic scripts of that tim),
is the Hebrew consonantal skeleton of Masoretic Hebrew yi*sh*ra:'e:l
which in Greek becomes Israe:l. the Egyptian rendition has the glottal
stop as well.

> why, and let alone explain where this "L" is
> coming from in a language that has no "L".
>

it's transliterated with an /r/ in Egyptian, which is how they
rendered foreign /l/.

> You certainly implied that there was somehow
> only one single transliteration, and never so
> much as addressed why this one transliteration
> should be chosen over the others...
>
> ....never mind why we should then leap to
> interpreting this transliteration as a failed attempt
> at "Israel."
>
> Again, the challenge here is to spell out the
> legitimate reasons for interpreting the word as
> "Israel," and their archaeological basis.

the reason for reading it as "Israel" is that the consonantal skeleton
in Egyptian is consistent with the consonantal skeleton of "Israel" in
Hebrew / Canaanite and the name appears in a Canaanite setting.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 7:30:57 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

and the reading of the sibilant (s like sound) as sin and not shin.

the various readings are discussed and answered in "Critical Issues in
Early Israelite History" 2008 in the article "Merenptah’s Reference to
Israel: Critical Issues for the Origin of Israel" by Michael G. Hasel.
I found it as an offprint .pdf in my computer, I don't remember how I
found it, but it must be in the Web somewhere. interesting book, it
also discusses Persians. I have to look it up in the university
library.

Message has been deleted

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 9:20:55 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

https://www.southern.edu/archaeology/Documents/Critical_Issues_Merenptah.pdf

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 9:43:18 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Oct 14, 7:49 am, The Other Guy <KnewsKg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 04:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey

> http://issuu.com/sauarch/docs/critical_issues_merenptah
>
> To reply by email, lose the Ks...

thanks

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 9:51:17 AM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Semitic languages have predictable voweling, that's why they could get
away with writing only the consosanants. when you are familiar with
them, you get used to reading them.

> y*sh*r'l (there is a glottal stop in between; s^ sin is not
> distinguished from *sh* *sh*in in the NW Semitic scripts of that tim),
> is the Hebrew consonantal skeleton of Masoretic Hebrew yi*sh*ra:'e:l

sorry yis^ra:'e:l

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 1:59:16 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> because they were a minor people at the time, that part does
> contradict the Biblical account.

They? The legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
reason for interpreting the name as "Israel" is because
whomever it speaks of does __Not__ match any
Israel of the bible?

This makes sense to you?

> > and when the name "Israel" does supposedly appear next
> > it's a completely different word, found in a completely
> > different culture, hundreds of miles away and hundreds
> > of years later.

> later it appears appears in Canaan,

So you're agreeing with me... ignoring the fact that it
doesn't say "Israel" in that case either.

> > > it transcribes <ys^r'l>
>
> > No, that is one way that it is popularly transcribed, but
>
> the above form is the Hebrew / Canaanite form,

We're talking about Egyptian here. Duh.

> > hardly the only way. In fact, there are many ways!
>
> > One of the first transliterations I saw read:
>
> > AJSRJAR(W)

> yes, that is the transliteration of the Egyptian word, except for the
> intial <A> which is not present in the inscription,

None of the above letters are present, as they are of the
modern English alphabet, not ancient Egyptian. THEY'RE
ALL TRANSLITERATIONS! None of the letters in any of
the transliterations were ever present on any Egyptian
monument!

Seesh!

Perhaps you should stick with the challenge instead of
wandering into any more stupid "Points"...

> > Strangely, if you go back and check, you will find
> > that I never asked about objections. In fact, I
> > specifically asked for the argument(s) in favor to
> > be detailed for us.
>
> the argument in favor is deconstructing those against.

That's not an argument. It's certainly not valid nor the
least bit scholarly/scientific.

What you're claiming is that the claim ("It's Israel") is the
default, that the claim appeared FIRST and it will remain
unless you can convince people otherwise.

You're describing a popularity contest -- at best -- if not
just plain wishful thinking...

"Well, this is what I want it to say, and I'll insist it says that
until you change my mind!"

> some tried to argue for Jezreel Hebrew Yizre`'el "God soweth"

Some bible nuts, you mean.

Again, one of the first transliterations I ever saw, from an
Egyptologist, identified it as a Libyan tribe...

> > You've simply offered a potential transliteration,
> > assured us that it is popular and left it at that.
>
> > You never even attempted to explain HOW they
> > make the leap from "ysrl" to "Israel" -- let alone
>
> y*sh*r'l (there is a glottal stop in between; s^ sin is not

> distinguished from [...]

The "R" you're misidentifying as an "L" has a literal mark.
It can only be read as an "R".

That's what a "Literal" mark means. Duh.

> it's transliterated with an /r/ in Egyptian, which is how they
> rendered foreign /l/.

You mean here:

http://www.psifer.com/hier_files/image011.jpg

Oops, no, sorry... that isn't an "R" at all, now is it?

And why use a literal mark when you mean exactly the
opposite of a literal reading?

You're being dumb.

> the reason for reading it as "Israel" is that the consonantal skeleton
> in Egyptian is consistent with the consonantal skeleton of "Israel" in
> Hebrew / Canaanite and the name appears in a Canaanite setting.

No it doesn't. In fact, no such name appears AT ALL!

As I already pointed out and you agreed...

Nowhere on the entire planet ca you find any reference to any
"Israel" at this time. When people do claim to find it again, it's
a completely different word, found hundreds of years later and
hundreds of miles away, written in a different language.

...and then there's the fact that it doesn't even depict the
letters you claim it depicts!

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 4:17:13 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> sorry yis^ra:'e:l

On the stone, the 1st & third letters are the same, you
have them as different.

Yes, they use an alternative sign on the stone, but
that was common enough.

The second "R" has a literal mark, while
ironically the first "R" does not -- yet you transliterate
the second "R" as an "L" and the one that doesn't
require a literal reading you have as "R."

Your "a" is supposed to only be an "a" at the beginning
of a word -- as in Amun.

http://www.floating-world.org/images/amen.gif

Finally, it's all moot because you're clinging to only one
of many transliterations -- any one of them better than
your dimestore "Hieroglyphic Dictionary" phonetic
translation...

THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS DID NOT LEAVE ANYTHING
WRITTEN IN PERFECT PHONETIC ENGLISH!

You're rationalizing. I asked you to spell out the
legitimate, archaeological-based scholarly reasons for
the INTERPRETATION of the word as Israel, and you
are unable to come up with any.

"well, if you accept this ONE transliteration, ignoring
all the others... and ignore the obvious mistakes in
it... and pretend it leaves us with a perfect phonetic
English reading of "Israel"... then it's some really
good evidence."

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 6:36:24 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Oct 14, 4:17 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

why are you arguing me? a comprehnsive article on the subject has been
available to you, read it and argue over the points if you wish.

> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > sorry yis^ra:'e:l
>

first of all this is not "my" theory, it is the theory that has been
most generally accepted by scholars.

> On the stone, the 1st & third letters are the same, you
> have them as different.
>

"on the stone" the first and second hieroglyphs are the same, the two
together yield /y/.

> Yes, they use an alternative sign on the stone, but
> that was common enough.
>
> The second "R" has a literal mark, while
> ironically the first "R" does not -- yet you transliterate
> the second "R" as an "L" and the one that doesn't
> require a literal reading you have as "R."

Egyptian does not have /l/, so in transcribing foreign words they used
the sign for <r>. foreign /r/ is transcribed as <r> as well.

>
> Your "a" is supposed to only be an "a" at the beginning
> of a word -- as in Amun.

actually it is a glottal stop. since the vowels of Ancient Egyptian
can only be guessed at, Egyptologists fill in the vowels with "a" and
"e", unless they hapen to be known through Greek or Coptic,

>
> http://www.floating-world.org/images/amen.gif
>
> Finally, it's all moot because you're clinging to only one
> of many transliterations -- any one of them better than

there is only one transliteration of the Egyptian text. you can argue
over what foreign name it represents.

> your dimestore "Hieroglyphic Dictionary" phonetic
> translation...

it's not "my" translation, it's that of scholars, and they don't use
"dimestore" hierogylphic dictionaries.

>
> THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS DID NOT LEAVE ANYTHING
> WRITTEN IN PERFECT PHONETIC ENGLISH!

I'm aware of that, so are the scholars who write on the subject.

>
> You're rationalizing. I asked you to spell out the
> legitimate, archaeological-based scholarly reasons for
> the INTERPRETATION of the word as Israel, and you
> are unable to come up with any.

as I said, it is a reasonable transcription of the Hebrew yis^ra:'e:l,
it refers to a foreign people (generally used for nomadic ones)
because of its determinative sign. and it is put in a Canaanite
context so it is reasonable to conclude, having failed to come up with
an alternative or after refuting other candidates, it is more than
reasonable to conclude that it represents the Hebrew ethnonym known as
Israel.

now, if you disagree with the above summary, an article has been made
available to you that goes into much more detail and you should read
it and bring up any points you deem relevant.

>
> "well, if you accept this ONE transliteration, ignoring
> all the others... and ignore the obvious mistakes in
> it... and pretend it leaves us with a perfect phonetic
> English reading of "Israel"... then it's some really
> good evidence."

English orthography is hardly phonetic, and the argument rests on the
consonantal skeleton written in Hebrew and attestted in later
epigraphy.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 6:52:55 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Oct 14, 1:59 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

what are you arguing about?

if you feel you can deconstruct the scholarly concesus at the stroke
of a pen, why don't you publish an article in a scholarly journal
under your own name?

> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > because they were a minor people at the time, that part does
> > contradict the Biblical account.
>
> They? The legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
> reason for interpreting the name as "Israel" is because
> whomever it speaks of does __Not__ match any
> Israel of the bible?
>
> This makes sense to you?

the name matches, but some of the information gained by the stele is
difficult to reconcile with the biblical narrative.

>
> > > and when the name "Israel" does supposedly appear next
> > > it's a completely different word, found in a completely
> > > different culture, hundreds of miles away and hundreds
> > > of years later.
> > later it appears appears in Canaan,
>
> So you're agreeing with me... ignoring the fact that it
> doesn't say "Israel" in that case either.
>
> > > > it transcribes <ys^r'l>
>
> > > No, that is one way that it is popularly transcribed, but
>
> > the above form is the Hebrew / Canaanite form,
>
> We're talking about Egyptian here. Duh.

yes. it is transliterated in the Egytian writing system.

>
> > > hardly the only way. In fact, there are many ways!
>
> > > One of the first transliterations I saw read:
>
> > > AJSRJAR(W)
> > yes, that is the transliteration of the Egyptian word, except for the
> > intial <A> which is not present in the inscription,
>
> None of the above letters are present, as they are of the
> modern English alphabet, not ancient Egyptian. THEY'RE
> ALL TRANSLITERATIONS! None of the letters in any of
> the transliterations were ever present on any Egyptian
> monument!
>

I can guess what Egyptian consonants you are refering to.

you are bringing up Ptolemaic era transcriptions by Greek speakers.
there is no /l/ in Ancient Egyptian, so both foreign /r/ and foreign /
l/ are depicted with the same sign. later, Greek speakers chose two
different heiroglyphic /r/ signs to differentiate between foreign /l/
and foreign /r/.

>
> And why use a literal mark when you mean exactly the
> opposite of a literal reading?
>
> You're being dumb.
>
> > the reason for reading it as "Israel" is that the consonantal skeleton
> > in Egyptian is consistent with the consonantal skeleton of "Israel" in
> > Hebrew / Canaanite and the name appears in a Canaanite setting.
>
> No it doesn't. In fact, no such name appears AT ALL!
>

the name appears so in the inscription.

> As I already pointed out and you agreed...
>
> Nowhere on the entire planet ca you find any reference to any
> "Israel" at this time. When people do claim to find it again, it's

yes. that's why it is the first attestation.

> a completely different word, found hundreds of years later and
> hundreds of miles away, written in a different language.

in the context of the narative of the stele, the rendering of "Israel"
comes up in the context of a campaign in Canaan, so loaction wise it
is where you expect it to be.

>
> ...and then there's the fact that it doesn't even depict the
> letters you claim it depicts!

it does depict the Hebrew letters.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 6:58:00 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> why are you arguing me? a comprehnsive article on the subject has been
> available to you, read it and argue over the points if you wish.

I'm not arguing with you. I can't. You have never
made an argument for me to oppose.

And we are all here to debate/discuss -- ARGUE -- the
evidence. That's why we're here.

You seem to think that it makes more sense to pretend
that other people's opinions are "Evidence".

You don't know the difference.

Now, again, if you feel a cite constructs a legitimate,
archaeology-based scholarly reason for INTERPRETING
the word as "Israel," you go right ahead and adopt that
argument.

There was never a requirement that you make up your
own position. If you feel that someone else already got
it right, you go right ahead and repeat as much of their
position as you want -- as much as you dare endorse.

> first of all this is not "my" theory, it is the theory that has been
> most generally accepted by scholars.

From the start I made it clear that I (nor reality) is interested
in popularity. I don't care who agrees with it or how many
people agree with it -- it's all irrelevant. All that matters is

the legitimate, archaeological-based scholarly reasons for

upholding the view.

There are none.

That was the point of this little exercise. It was impossible for
you to succeed -- and I knew this from the start -- and the hope
was that, by your failure, you would realize this yourself.

Sort of a case where it dawns on you...

"Hey! He's right! The more I look the more certain I am of the
fact that there is no legitimate argument here, no factual basis
for this claim!"

But, man, no matter how low my opinion of you, you always
manage to disappoint.

> > On the stone, the 1st & third letters are the same, you
> > have them as different.
>
> "on the stone" the first and second hieroglyphs are the same, the two
> together yield /y/.

No, you idiot, I did not gay "hieroglyphs" I said "letters." I was
counting the double-reed sign as one letter.

Damn, you are such a bad faker...

> > The second "R" has a literal mark, while
> > ironically the first "R" does not -- yet you transliterate
> > the second "R" as an "L" and the one that doesn't
> > require a literal reading you have as "R."
>
> Egyptian does not have /l/, so in transcribing foreign words they used
> the sign for <r>. foreign /r/ is transcribed as <r> as well.

Again: Literal mark. LITERAL MARK. The word you
keep ignoring is "Literal."

The second "R" has a LITERAL mark. It can't be read as
(sound any different from) "R" (or "Ro" most likely).

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 7:05:17 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

: Semitic languages have predictable voweling, that's why they could

get
: away with writing only the consosanants. when you are familiar with
: them, you get used to reading them.

And then in the very next post....

> actually it is a glottal stop. since the vowels of Ancient Egyptian
> can only be guessed at, Egyptologists fill in the vowels with "a" and
> "e", unless they hapen to be known through Greek or Coptic,

It's an "e". Convention says to insert an "e".

Now, instead of continuing to misrepresent yourself as a
language expert, why not answer the challenge or admit
the obvious (that I'm right)?

The challenge is: Detail for us the legitimate, archaeology
based scholarly reasons for INTERPRETING the word as
"Israel."

Don't give us any argument "against." Don't give us any
illegitimate arguments -- like popularity, or an appeal to
some authority. All we want are legitimate reasons, based
on physical evidence, for looking as a word that appears
nowhere else in the entire history of the planet earth and
claiming, "Hey! That says Israel!"

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 7:07:58 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Oct 14, 6:58 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > why are you arguing me? a comprehnsive article on the subject has been
> > available to you, read it and argue over the points if you wish.
>
> I'm not arguing with you. I can't. You have never
> made an argument for me to oppose.
>
> And we are all here to debate/discuss -- ARGUE -- the
> evidence. That's why we're here.

well, actually I would rather learn and I am not learning anything
from you.

if you feel so confident oof your views, publish them.

>
> You seem to think that it makes more sense to pretend
> that other people's opinions are "Evidence".
>
> You don't know the difference.
>
> Now, again, if you feel a cite constructs a legitimate,
> archaeology-based scholarly reason for INTERPRETING
> the word as "Israel," you go right ahead and adopt that
> argument.
>
> There was never a requirement that you make up your
> own position. If you feel that someone else already got
> it right, you go right ahead and repeat as much of their
> position as you want -- as much as you dare endorse.
>
> > first of all this is not "my" theory, it is the theory that has been
> > most generally accepted by scholars.
>
> From the start I made it clear that I (nor reality) is interested
> in popularity. I don't care who agrees with it or how many
> people agree with it -- it's all irrelevant. All that matters is
> the legitimate, archaeological-based scholarly reasons for
> upholding the view.

you won't have archeaology of a "nomadic people". it's a question of
inscriptions. if you ask for another inscription at teh same time,
there are none.

what on Earth do you mean by "literal mark". both are depicted by the
same glyph.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 8:17:29 PM10/14/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what are you arguing about?

We're not arguing. Instead of arguing the point, instead
of making the case you keep spilling irrelevant asides
and fallacious arguments. All I'm doing is pointing this
fact out, and then reminding you what the question was:

What are the legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
reasons for INTERPRETING the word as "Israel"?

You can't answer, and you refuse to admit this screaming
obvious fact. Instead you've proposed appeals to a
nameless/faceless authority and made claims concerning
popularity, but never a legitimate, science-based reason.

> if you feel you can deconstruct the scholarly concesus at the stroke

"Consensus" is just a fancy word for "Popular," and I keep
making it clear that "It's popular" is not a legitimate reason,
and there's certainly not a shred of archaeology to back it
up...

Sheesh!

Seriously, how many more times do you need this explained
to you?

> > They? The legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
> > reason for interpreting the name as "Israel" is because
> > whomever it speaks of does __Not__ match any
> > Israel of the bible?
>
> > This makes sense to you?

> the name matches,

But it doesn't match. Not only that it's impossible for it
to match! Egyptian had no "L" to begin with, you nitwit!

...and you yourself admitted that there are numerous
DIFFERENT transliterations.... only to continuously pretend
that there's only one (the phonetic-English transliteration).

We know your transliteration has to be wrong because it
ignores one letter ENTIRELY even as it insists on reading
a LITERAL "R" (Ro) as an "L".

And even if by some miracle you had gotten anything right
(which you hadn't), even ignoring the impossibility of your
colorful interpretation it STILL not any kind of reason for
reading it as "Israel"!

"Well, hey, it kind of looks similar to the way "Israel" is
typed a thousand years later, so it must be it!"

No. It's stupid. It's incredibly stupid. In fact, the word
never before appeared anywhere on the planet Earth,
and never appeared again! But the Egyptians where
still there. They still controlled the region some 200
years later, they were still building palaces there some
400 years later AND NOBODY RECORDED ANY
ISRAEL!

The very next supposed mention of any "Israel" is
a completely different word, one with ZERO similarity
to this one.

There's the "Meshe Stele," most of which doesn't
even exist. It's a "Reconstruction." In other words,
it can say anything you want it to say. Here, look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre_042010_01.jpg

All the black parts are fake. They supposedly were
"Reconstructed" using a "Squeeze" that nobody alive
claims to have ever laid eyes on.

There's also the "Black Obelisk" which supposedly
depicts the jews as men wearing the Liberty or
Phrygian cap -- a piece of headwear that originates
in Anatolia and represents the foreskin.

Get it? Jews wearing a giant foreskin on their heads?

Now the way all this nonsense was rationalized was that
they found the name "Khumri" and then ONE MAN
decided that "Khumri" was Omri and that Omri was a
king of Israel, hence we have a mention of Israel.

Only problem is: That ONE MAN was "Sir H.
Rawlinson," and even searching for 10 years after
the fact I could find all but one single mention of
his colorful interpretation in a book, and that book
attributed it exclusively to Rawlinson.

Actually it was more than 10 years later: 12, in fact.

The point is that when an idea is popular (They
found Israel!) then it spreads, even so, even at a
time when most of Archaeology was little more than
biblical wishing, the "Reference to Israel" crap was
unpopular.

People had to grow up with the idea. They couldn't
adopt it -- it was too far fetched -- they had to grow
up hearing BEFORE they got an education. It had
to already be an "Everybody knows" before a single
person graduated from a college thinking that they
could read the name of a Jewish king anywhere.

P.S. Any king "Omri" would have been dead for
decades if he had really existed. So people were
carving monumnets commemorating the defeat of
someone who was already dead!

Yet, as pathetic as these excuses for finding "Israel"
in the archaeological record are, they are the only
ones for hundreds of years.

it was hundreds of years before their time when
anyone claims merneptah mentioned an Israel,
and hundreds of years after their time before anyone
claims to find any more references to any Israel...

Pathetic.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 8:32:43 PM10/14/12

to

On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > what are you arguing about?
>
> We're not arguing. Instead of arguing the point, instead
> of making the case you keep spilling irrelevant asides
> and fallacious arguments. All I'm doing is pointing this
> fact out, and then reminding you what the question was:
>
> What are the legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
> reasons for INTERPRETING the word as "Israel"?

give an example of an "archaeology-based scholarly reason".

if you are looking for another inscription, there is none. but that in
and of itself does not disprove it.

>
> You can't answer, and you refuse to admit this screaming
> obvious fact. Instead you've proposed appeals to a
> nameless/faceless authority and made claims concerning
> popularity, but never a legitimate, science-based reason.
>
> > if you feel you can deconstruct the scholarly concesus at the stroke
>
> "Consensus" is just a fancy word for "Popular," and I keep
> making it clear that "It's popular" is not a legitimate reason,
> and there's certainly not a shred of archaeology to back it
> up...
>
> Sheesh!

"Sheesh!" is not an argument. not the type of word you would find in
a journal.

>
> Seriously, how many more times do you need this explained
> to you?
>
> > > They? The legitimate, archaeology-based scholarly
> > > reason for interpreting the name as "Israel" is because
> > > whomever it speaks of does __Not__ match any
> > > Israel of the bible?
>
> > > This makes sense to you?
> > the name matches,
>
> But it doesn't match. Not only that it's impossible for it
> to match! Egyptian had no "L" to begin with, you nitwit!

but Egyptian <r> was used to transcribe foreign /l/ as well.

>
> ...and you yourself admitted that there are numerous
> DIFFERENT transliterations.... only to continuously pretend
> that there's only one (the phonetic-English transliteration).
>
> We know your transliteration has to be wrong because it
> ignores one letter ENTIRELY even as it insists on reading
> a LITERAL "R" (Ro) as an "L".

what is a "literal r" as opposed to a non-literal one?

>
> And even if by some miracle you had gotten anything right
> (which you hadn't), even ignoring the impossibility of your
> colorful interpretation it STILL not any kind of reason for
> reading it as "Israel"!
>
> "Well, hey, it kind of looks similar to the way "Israel" is
> typed a thousand years later, so it must be it!"
>
> No. It's stupid. It's incredibly stupid. In fact, the word
> never before appeared anywhere on the planet Earth,
> and never appeared again! But the Egyptians where
> still there. They still controlled the region some 200
> years later, they were still building palaces there some
> 400 years later AND NOBODY RECORDED ANY
> ISRAEL!

yes. evdiently they were not that a prominant people.

>
> The very next supposed mention of any "Israel" is
> a completely different word, one with ZERO similarity
> to this one.
>

"zero" is wrong.

> There's the "Meshe Stele," most of which doesn't
> even exist. It's a "Reconstruction." In other words,
> it can say anything you want it to say. Here, look:
>

the Hebrew for Israel ids quite clear.

Message has been deleted

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 9:20:58 PM10/14/12

to

On Oct 14, 7:05 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : Semitic languages have predictable voweling, that's why they could
> get
> : away with writing only the consosanants. when you are familiar with
> : them, you get used to reading them.
>
> And then in the very next post....
>
> > actually it is a glottal stop. since the vowels of Ancient Egyptian
> > can only be guessed at, Egyptologists fill in the vowels with "a" and
> > "e", unless they hapen to be known through Greek or Coptic,
>
> It's an "e". Convention says to insert an "e".
>

Ancient Egyptian is not a Semitic language, and no, we don't know its
voweling paradigms.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 12:16:53 AM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> give an example of an "archaeology-based scholarly reason".

That's easy:

Suppose an Alien came to earth, an alien that never heard
of the bible nor any other religion. He's really into
archaeology -- Big Time.

All he knows is what has been pulled out of the ground,
what has been left on papyrus and what has been
carved into stones IN ANCIENT TIMES.

That's all he knows. He knows it all -- he's seen every
last bit of archaeology, read every last text -- but he's
totally ignorant of everything in existence even a century
after the time of Merneptah.

What could possibly lead him to INTERPRET this word
as "Israel"?

The answer is NOTHING!

Add another 300 years. Give our hypothetical alien
complete knowledge of all archaeology -- all the
monuments, all the texts -- in existence up to 300 years
after the time of Merneptah. What could possibly lead
him to interpret the word as "Israel"?

NOTHING!

It's entirely circular: You must believe there was
such a thing as "Israel" FIRST in order to so much as
entertain the thought that it could be read "Israel."

I'll place it in terms so simple that even trolls can get
it:

As things stand, you need the bible in order to
interpret the word as "Israel." No bible, no word.

None.

> > "Consensus" is just a fancy word for "Popular," and I keep
> > making it clear that "It's popular" is not a legitimate reason,
> > and there's certainly not a shred of archaeology to back it
> > up...
>
> > Sheesh!
>
> "Sheesh!" is not an argument. not the type of word you would find in
> a journal.

You're not responding to what I said... Sheesh!

> but Egyptian <r> was used to transcribe foreign /l/ as well.

Show us.

> > We know your transliteration has to be wrong because it
> > ignores one letter ENTIRELY even as it insists on reading
> > a LITERAL "R" (Ro) as an "L".
>
> what is a "literal r" as opposed to a non-literal one?

Exactly what it sounds like.

> > No. It's stupid. It's incredibly stupid. In fact, the word
> > never before appeared anywhere on the planet Earth,
> > and never appeared again! But the Egyptians where
> > still there. They still controlled the region some 200
> > years later, they were still building palaces there some
> > 400 years later AND NOBODY RECORDED ANY
> > ISRAEL!

> yes. evdiently they were not that a prominant people.

No, troll, they did not exist.

> > The very next supposed mention of any "Israel" is
> > a completely different word, one with ZERO similarity
> > to this one.
>
> "zero" is wrong.

No, it's a completely different word and there really
is ZERO similarity.

> the Hebrew for Israel ids quite clear.

Which of the multiple texts called "Hebrew" are
you speaking of?

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 12:22:27 AM10/15/12

to

Claim #1:

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Semitic languages have predictable voweling, that's why they
: could get away with writing only the consosanants. when you
: are familiar with them, you get used to reading them.

"Semitic languages have predictable voweling..."

Claim #2 (a contradiction):

: actually it is a glottal stop. since the vowels of Ancient

: Egyptian can only be guessed at, Egyptologists fill in
: the vowels with "a" and "e", unless they hapen to be
: known through Greek or Coptic,

From "Predictable" to "only can be guessed at.

Now for Claim #3 (and yet another contradiction):

: Ancient Egyptian is not a Semitic language, and no,

: we don't know its voweling paradigms.

NOTE: The context hasn't changed one iota. It's
the exact same argument for all three DIFFERENT
claims this "Yusuf" makes. In all three cases he's
defending (poorly) is interpretation of the word
"Israel" in an Egyptian text...

I'm not misrepresenting him, I am not ripping anything
out of context. He really is this crazy... and a sock
puppet.

Matt Giwer

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 12:48:20 AM10/15/12

to

Wikipedia. Way to drag down the discussion.

--
Like the Iraq war over its nuclear weapons program
Israel and Jews are not behind the Iran war either.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4418
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Sun, Oct 14, 2012 2:04:36 AM

Matt Giwer

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 12:57:18 AM10/15/12

to

On 10/14/2012 9:06 PM, The Other Guy wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
> <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> as I said, it is a reasonable transcription of the Hebrew yis^ra:'e:l,
>

> Which doesn't matter, when you're dealing with an UNreasonable person.

As Finkelstein told the BAR editor in an interview, even if that is a
correct pronunciation of the word I have no idea what it might have
meant in the context of that period.

Believers are supposed to actually believe things and when they trot
out their bible stories that first appear in history in the 2nd c. BC
they are supposed to stick with them. Hebrews first appear in Exodus.
Half way through the 40 desert years they start being called Israelites.
That is what it reads. No Israelites to be destroyed completely until then.

OTOH if one wants them to be utterly destroyed in the time of that
inscription then all of the Torah is shit-canned including Moses and
Passover and the entire foundation of the bible.

You can't have it just any way you choose to imagine it with ad hoc
excuses for everything. But that is what we all expect from nerfbrains.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 1:05:13 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 12:22 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Claim #1:
>
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : Semitic languages have predictable voweling, that's why they
> : could get away with writing only the consosanants. when you
> : are familiar with them, you get used to reading them.
>
> "Semitic languages have predictable voweling..."
>
> Claim #2 (a contradiction):
>
> : actually it is a glottal stop. since the vowels of Ancient
> : Egyptian can only be guessed at, Egyptologists fill in
> : the vowels with "a" and "e", unless they hapen to be
> : known through Greek or Coptic,
>
> From "Predictable" to "only can be guessed at.

for *Semitic* it is predictable. for *Ancient Egyptian* it can only be
guessed at

>
> Now for Claim #3 (and yet another contradiction):
>
> : Ancient Egyptian is not a Semitic language, and no,
> : we don't know its voweling paradigms.
>
> NOTE: The context hasn't changed one iota. It's
> the exact same argument for all three DIFFERENT
> claims this "Yusuf" makes. In all three cases he's
> defending (poorly) is interpretation of the word
> "Israel" in an Egyptian text...

see the article.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 1:24:27 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 12:16 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > give an example of an "archaeology-based scholarly reason".
>
> That's easy:
>
> Suppose an Alien came to earth, an alien that never heard
> of the bible nor any other religion. He's really into
> archaeology -- Big Time.
>

so an alien into archaeology "big time" is an "archaeology-based
scholarly reason".

> All he knows is what has been pulled out of the ground,
> what has been left on papyrus and what has been
> carved into stones IN ANCIENT TIMES.
>
> That's all he knows. He knows it all -- he's seen every
> last bit of archaeology, read every last text -- but he's
> totally ignorant of everything in existence even a century
> after the time of Merneptah.
>

then he isn't a good archaeologist.

but he sees that it is a name associated with Canaan. he sees the 'r
ending. he knows that 'l is a theophoric in Semitic names. he knows it
would appear in Egyptian rendering as 'r. he reconstructs that. the
rest is getting the verbs right and figuring out a meaning to iron out
the details. if he hits upon "El persevers" he will get it right.

any Canaanite idiom

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 2:37:27 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 14, 5:00 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

you never gave the reference. name, year of publication, journal or
book

this is not a polemic. I would genuinely like to read that article or
whatever followups it may have had.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 2:47:46 AM10/15/12

to

On 15/10/2012 05:22, JTEM wrote:
> Claim #1:

>
> NOTE: The context hasn't changed one iota. It's
> the exact same argument for all three DIFFERENT
> claims this "Yusuf" makes. In all three cases he's
> defending (poorly) is interpretation of the word
> "Israel" in an Egyptian text...
>

Why would his name not be Yusuf? It is a common name in Turkish, though
of Semitic origin, and I assure you that his surname is Turkish. Allah
korusun.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 4:49:37 AM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> so an alien into archaeology "big time" is an "archaeology-based
> scholarly reason".

If that's what you think I said, troll, then you are
even more fucked up than I've given you credit
for...

> then he isn't a good archaeologist.

Great. And you're not an archaeologist at all.

> but he sees that it is a name associated with Canaan.

Or Libya. But neither requires an "Israel" unless you
begin with your conclusion -- that there had to be an
Israel there.

> he sees the 'r ending.

With the literal mark, so he knows it can't be
transliterated as an "L"....

> he knows that 'l is a theophoric in Semitic names.

Again, only if you ignore the literal mark.

And I ask again: Where are your examples of this
"R" being used for "L", and which of the three or
more different texts called "Hebrew" are you speaking
of?

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 4:50:52 AM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you never gave the reference. name, year of publication, journal or
> book

So? You never disputed it. You even acknowledged
freely that, yes, there are many ways that people
transliterate it.

You don't do this very good.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 4:52:58 AM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> for *Semitic* it is predictable. for *Ancient Egyptian* it can only be
> guessed at

Again, the context hasn't changed. In both cases --
where you claim it is semitic and predictable and
where you claim that it is neither -- it's the exact
same word.

It's was the supposed "Merneptah Stele" all three
times.

You're fucked up.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 4:58:27 AM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> well, actually I would rather learn and I am not learning anything
> from you.

That's not true!

You've learned that you're an idiot who thinks opinions
are facts and facts are useless.

You dispute what you accept. You acknowledge points
only to demand citations (how does that work?).

You think Egyptian is and isn't semitic, and that the
vowels are and are not predictable.

> you won't have archeaology of a "nomadic people".

Which is circular. You have to begin with your conclusion
(these "Israelites" were there)... so why even bother
arguing the evidence at all?

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 6:53:25 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 4:49 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > so an alien into archaeology "big time" is an "archaeology-based
> > scholarly reason".
>
> If that's what you think I said, troll, then you are
> even more fucked up than I've given you credit
> for...
>
> > then he isn't a good archaeologist.
>
> Great. And you're not an archaeologist at all.
>
> > but he sees that it is a name associated with Canaan.
>
> Or Libya. But neither requires an "Israel" unless you
> begin with your conclusion -- that there had to be an
> Israel there.
>
> > he sees the 'r ending.
>
> With the literal mark, so he knows it can't be
> transliterated as an "L"....
>
> > he knows that 'l is a theophoric in Semitic names.
>
> Again, only if you ignore the literal mark.

what is teh "literal mark"???

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 6:55:24 AM10/15/12

to

what is the reference???

whether I agree with or not

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:11:50 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 4:58 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > well, actually I would rather learn and I am not learning anything
> > from you.
>
> That's not true!
>
> You've learned that you're an idiot who thinks opinions
> are facts and facts are useless.
>
> You dispute what you accept. You acknowledge points
> only to demand citations (how does that work?).
>
> You think Egyptian is and isn't semitic, and that the
> vowels are and are not predictable.

EGYPTIAN IS NOT SEMITIC. WE DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAINTY THE VOWELING
SYSTEM OF EGYPTIAN.

SEMITIC LANGUAGES ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE
LIVING LANGUAGES.

>
> > you won't have archeaology of a "nomadic people".
>
> Which is circular. You have to begin with your conclusion
> (these "Israelites" were there)... so why even bother
> arguing the evidence at all?

*I* DID NOT DECIPHER THE INSCRIPTION

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:12:51 AM10/15/12

to

YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:16:22 AM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:53 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 4:49 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > so an alien into archaeology "big time" is an "archaeology-based
> > > scholarly reason".
>
> > If that's what you think I said, troll, then you are
> > even more fucked up than I've given you credit
> > for...
>
> > > then he isn't a good archaeologist.
>
> > Great. And you're not an archaeologist at all.
>
> > > but he sees that it is a name associated with Canaan.
>
> > Or Libya. But neither requires an "Israel" unless you
> > begin with your conclusion -- that there had to be an
> > Israel there.
>
> > > he sees the 'r ending.
>
> > With the literal mark, so he knows it can't be
> > transliterated as an "L"....
>
> > > he knows that 'l is a theophoric in Semitic names.
>
> > Again, only if you ignore the literal mark.
>
> what is teh "literal mark"???
>
>

I presume you are refering the vertical stroke, Gardiner Z1.

it indicates that the whole cluster represents phonetic signs and not
ideograms. it does not mean that the <r> does not represent /l/ in the
original language. Egyptian has no way to differentiat between /l/
and /r/.

J.LyonLayden

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 3:11:54 PM10/15/12

to

Reading this from outside of the debate, I have to say you guys are at a stalemate. Yusuf has provided a paper and evidence for there being more to the interpretation than just the letters being similar, and JTEM has provided reasons why an alien wouldn't interpret it as such, but in some regards has oversimplified the points made by Yusuf.

"It's entirely circular: You must believe there was
such a thing as "Israel" FIRST in order to so much as
entertain the thought that it could be read "Israel."

Well we do have the Dead Sea scrolls which do in fact mention Israel, which is evidence that someone believed in the existence of Israel in the first few centuries AD and that its history went back into time preceding that. Since languages change, it would be highly unlikely that the word for the "nation" would be exactly the same from it's beginning to it's historical end, seeing as how languages and "alphabets" change and interpretations occur between passings of knowledge.

It seems to me that if everything in the Bible were complete fiction and written or created hundreds or thousands of years after the events supposedly occured, then they would have had an equal or greater chance of using the names of cities that were around in the first centuries AD but hadn't been around as long as the ones the Bible does mention, which we now know were the oldest cities...such as Babylon and Jericho.

In other words, if Joshua had attacked a city that didn't exist when he supposedly lived instead of attacking one that we know DID exist, we'd know it was definitely a made-up city. Since there were presumably thousands of cities as big as Jericho at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it would be much more likely, just by the roll of the dice, that a fiction writer would have picked one of those other cities to describe Joshua's battle instead of one of the few that we now know was actually around and had a wall when Joshua lived.

So what I am wondering is what the political motivation in this post is to try so vehemently to disprove that Israel existed? Why not try to disprove any of the other historical cities or nations mentioned in ancient sources which have the same tenuous references?

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 6:48:00 PM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what is teh "literal mark"???

Wow, so our resident "Language Expert,"
the person who has been misrepresenting
himself for days as knowledgeable on
the subject, now exposes the fact that he's
been faking it all along...

Here. Read this:

: An ideogram means a special kind of abbreviation. Ideograms
: were occasionally present along with a phonetic sign followed
: by a vertical line. The line represented the appearance of the
: actual object, in more or less definite terms.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html

This vertical line -- this "Literal Mark" -- is clearly
present and clearly associated with the "R" that
you're saying should be read as an "L".

As the above suggests, that is a VERY stupid
position to hold...

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 6:51:10 PM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> EGYPTIAN IS NOT SEMITIC.

First off, the Egyptians were a semitic people.
Secondly, I took nothing out of context: YOU
identified the text as Semitic, claiming that the
vowels were predictable, only to turn around
and claim that it isn't Semitic and that the
vowels are not predictable.

You're the etch-a-sketch (f)Lame warrior!

P.S. That's called "Trolling." You're arguing
for the sake of argument.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 6:58:53 PM10/15/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I presume you are refering the vertical stroke, Gardiner Z1.
>
> it indicates that the whole cluster represents phonetic signs and not
> ideograms.

You've got it backwards. It means it should be read
LITERALLY -- hence the term "Literal mark." It's
insisting that you read the "R" sign literally: "Ro."

: A logogram (or ideogram) represents an entire
: word. Many logograms are also determinatives
: and phonograms. If the sign is intended to act
: as a logogram, there is usually a vertical line
: beneath it. For example, sign for the letter "r"
: becomes the sign for word "mouth" when written
: with a vertical line (indicating it is a logogram).
http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hieroglyphs-tutorial.html

Again, after all the time you spent pretending to
be a language "expert"... making all sorts of
idiotic comments...

> it does not mean that the <r> does not represent /l/ in the
> original language.

Actually, that is PRECISELY what it means.

> Egyptian has no way to differentiat between /l/
> and /r/.

That's not true at all. You're making this stuff up,
and it shows.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:20:18 PM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:58 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I presume you are refering the vertical stroke, Gardiner Z1.
>
> > it indicates that the whole cluster represents phonetic signs and not
> > ideograms.
>
> You've got it backwards. It means it should be read
> LITERALLY -- hence the term "Literal mark." It's
> insisting that you read the "R" sign literally: "Ro."
>
> : A logogram (or ideogram) represents an entire
> : word. Many logograms are also determinatives
> : and phonograms. If the sign is intended to act
> : as a logogram, there is usually a vertical line
> : beneath it. For example, sign for the letter "r"
> : becomes the sign for word "mouth" when written

> : with a vertical line (indicating it is a logogram).http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hieroglyphs-tutorial.html

>
> Again, after all the time you spent pretending to
> be a language "expert"... making all sorts of
> idiotic comments...
>
> > it does not mean that the <r> does not represent /l/ in the
> > original language.
>
> Actually, that is PRECISELY what it means.
>
> > Egyptian has no way to differentiat between /l/
> > and /r/.
>
> That's not true at all. You're making this stuff up,
> and it shows.

so everybody else is wrong and you are right ...

I gave up on you when you posted the nonesense about <J>

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:37:02 PM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:58 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I presume you are refering the vertical stroke, Gardiner Z1.
>
> > it indicates that the whole cluster represents phonetic signs and not
> > ideograms.
>
> You've got it backwards. It means it should be read
> LITERALLY -- hence the term "Literal mark." It's
> insisting that you read the "R" sign literally: "Ro."

the "r sign" when it represetns a syllable is to be read r` ; r +
voiced pharyngeal fricative

>
> : A logogram (or ideogram) represents an entire
> : word. Many logograms are also determinatives
> : and phonograms. If the sign is intended to act
> : as a logogram, there is usually a vertical line
> : beneath it. For example, sign for the letter "r"
> : becomes the sign for word "mouth" when written

> : with a vertical line (indicating it is a logogram).http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hieroglyphs-tutorial.html

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:39:30 PM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:51 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EGYPTIAN IS NOT SEMITIC.
>
> First off, the Egyptians were a semitic people.

they were not, at least as regards to languge. Ancient Egyptian and
Coptic belong to sepearte of the Afro-Asiatic languge family.

> Secondly, I took nothing out of context: YOU
> identified the text as Semitic, claiming that the

the text is not Semitic, the word is,

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 7:42:59 PM10/15/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:48 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > what is teh "literal mark"???
>
> Wow, so our resident "Language Expert,"
> the person who has been misrepresenting
> himself for days as knowledgeable on
> the subject, now exposes the fact that he's
> been faking it all along...
>
> Here. Read this:
>
> : An ideogram means a special kind of abbreviation. Ideograms
> : were occasionally present along with a phonetic sign followed
> : by a vertical line. The line represented the appearance of the

> : actual object, in more or less definite terms.http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html

>
> This vertical line -- this "Literal Mark" -- is clearly
> present and clearly associated with the "R" that
> you're saying should be read as an "L".

"I" AM NOT SAYING IT

it is not to be *read* as [l] but in thi scase represents *foreign*
[l]

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 9:24:06 PM10/15/12

to

There are some lone voices calling for new interpretations. A. Nibbi
believes it can be translated as 'the wearers of a sidelock' (Canaan
and Canaanite in Ancient Egypt Hawskworth: Becardo 1989;101) and that
it refers to a Libyan within Egypt.

>>
<<

Non-Israel. Alessandra Nibbi has argued again recently that the entity
ysry3r/l in the Merenptah stela is not to be equated with the region
of Canaan and biblical Israel at all (Nibbi 1994; 1996). She argues
that ysry3r/l could be interpreted as “the wearers of the
sidelock” (1989: 101). Her suggestion has been virtually ignored, and
she admits that it is based on an argument from silence. She maintains
that all entities mentioned on the stela are to be found in Egypt.
"The names of Jasqrn and Qqr which also appear in these last two lines
cannot be accepted as Askelon and Gezer" (Nibbi 1996: 93–94). This
drastic reinterpretation has met with little acceptance, being based
largely on her assumption of scribal errors in a number of instances.
The Karnak reliefs redated by Yurco to the reign of Merenptah also
provide a serious difficulty for Nibbi’s hypothesis (Yurco 1986; Hasel
1994: 46). Here, Ashkelon appears with the identical
syllabicorthography found in the stela (...) and is clearly a location
in western Asia as is evident from the iconography of the inhabitants
defending the city who are depicted as Asiatics (Wreszinski1935: taf.
1; Helck 1971: 333–35; Hasel 2003a: 34–36).

>>

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:29:24 AM10/16/12

to

On Oct 15, 6:58 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I presume you are refering the vertical stroke, Gardiner Z1.
>
> > it indicates that the whole cluster represents phonetic signs and not
> > ideograms.
>
> You've got it backwards. It means it should be read
> LITERALLY -- hence the term "Literal mark." It's
> insisting that you read the "R" sign literally: "Ro."
>
> : A logogram (or ideogram) represents an entire
> : word. Many logograms are also determinatives
> : and phonograms. If the sign is intended to act
> : as a logogram, there is usually a vertical line
> : beneath it. For example, sign for the letter "r"
> : becomes the sign for word "mouth" when written
> : with a vertical line (indicating it is a logogram).

> : http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hieroglyphs-tutorial.html
>

it is also sometimes used, acc. to Gardiner, to fill up a blank space.

instead of second guessing the decipherment, I will look at the
original sources.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:33:57 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> so everybody else is wrong and you are right ...

It's not about me, it's about the facts.

Let me put it this way:

You had to invent a whole new Egyptian language,
one where ideograms are the exact opposite of
ideograms, just to claim that I am wrong. It took
THAT much, nothing short of inventing a whole new
ancient Egyptian language...

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:37:51 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Secondly, I took nothing out of context: YOU
> > identified the text as Semitic, claiming that the
>
> the text is not Semitic, the word is,

This makes, what? Your fourth different position?

And to clarify matters: No it isn't. It's Egyptian. It's
the Egyptian name for a people. You can only arrive
at your identification of the word by inventing a
completely different Egyptian language, one where
ideograms are the exact opposite of ideograms, and
even then you ignored an entire sign! (The third one,
as I already pointed out).

It's like claiming that the English "Germany" is
German.

It's not.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:39:44 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the "r sign" when it represetns a syllable is to

It's an ideogram, you fucking idiot!

It's not a syllable, it's an ideogram!

That's what the literal mark means -- that
vertical line under it!

It's not a syllable.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:46:46 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> it is also sometimes used, acc. to Gardiner, to fill up a blank space.

No. Never randomly. Show us where else on this
stele they use the literal mark to fill in space.

> instead of second guessing the decipherment,

I'm not second guessing anything. The "Israel" thing
is bullshit. It's made up. It's not "Iffy," there's no room
for error here, it's all made up.

They didn't even do a halfway decent job of it! The
word "Ashkelon" should be spelled phonetically,
and it should use the "R" to represent the "L" but guess
what? Did you guess?

THEY DON'T USE THE "R"!

Check for yourself. It's on the same line as your fake
"Israel," there in the beginning.

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/49/Merenptah_Stele_text_from_Petrie_1897.png

What, you think this is uncommon? For them to make
up religious "Evidence"? Please.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 12:51:37 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are some lone voices calling for new interpretations.

No, honey, outside the fantasy world of biblical
archaeology and the media, everyone knows
that it doesn't say "Israel," and they all agree that
INTERPRETING it as Israel is stupid.

It's inconsistent.

For one thing, the "R" has a literal mark, it can't
be read as "L."

Secondly, looking elsewhere on the stone they
don't use "R" for the "L" sound. On the exact
same line as the fantasy "Israel" is the word
Ashkelon and there's no "R".

Here's an image of the text. "Ashkelon" is on the
exact same line and there's no "R", no representation
of any "L" sound with the "R."

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/49/Merenptah_Stele_text_from_Petrie_1897.png

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 3:02:16 AM10/16/12

to

On Oct 16, 12:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Secondly, I took nothing out of context: YOU
> > > identified the text as Semitic, claiming that the
>
> > the text is not Semitic, the word is,
>
> This makes, what? Your fourth different position?

the word in question on the stele is a rendition of a Semitic word
into Egyptian.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 3:02:54 AM10/16/12

to

I was talking about the "r" sign in general

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 3:04:38 AM10/16/12

to

On Oct 16, 12:51 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are some lone voices calling for new interpretations.
>
> No, honey, outside the fantasy world of biblical

I'm definitely not your "honey"

> archaeology and the media, everyone knows
> that it doesn't say "Israel," and they all agree that
> INTERPRETING it as Israel is stupid.
>

most scholarly works read it as Israel. some as Jezreel.

> It's inconsistent.
>
> For one thing, the "R" has a literal mark, it can't
> be read as "L."
>
> Secondly, looking elsewhere on the stone they
> don't use "R" for the "L" sound. On the exact
> same line as the fantasy "Israel" is the word
> Ashkelon and there's no "R".
>
> Here's an image of the text. "Ashkelon" is on the
> exact same line and there's no "R", no representation
> of any "L" sound with the "R."
>

> http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/49/Merenptah_Stele_text_from_Pe...

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 4:26:52 AM10/16/12

to

On Oct 16, 12:46 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it is also sometimes used, acc. to Gardiner, to fill up a blank space.
>
> No. Never randomly. Show us where else on this
> stele they use the literal mark to fill in space.
>
> > instead of second guessing the decipherment,
>
> I'm not second guessing anything. The "Israel" thing
> is bullshit. It's made up. It's not "Iffy," there's no room
> for error here, it's all made up.
>
> They didn't even do a halfway decent job of it! The
> word "Ashkelon" should be spelled phonetically,
> and it should use the "R" to represent the "L" but guess
> what? Did you guess?
>
> THEY DON'T USE THE "R"!
>

they use a different glyph.

> Check for yourself. It's on the same line as your fake
> "Israel," there in the beginning.

IT'S *NOT MINE*

>
> http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/49/Merenptah_Stele_text_from_Pe...

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 4:39:16 AM10/16/12

to

On Oct 16, 4:26 am, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:46 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it is also sometimes used, acc. to Gardiner, to fill up a blank space.
>
> > No. Never randomly. Show us where else on this
> > stele they use the literal mark to fill in space.
>
> > > instead of second guessing the decipherment,
>
> > I'm not second guessing anything. The "Israel" thing
> > is bullshit. It's made up. It's not "Iffy," there's no room
> > for error here, it's all made up.
>
> > They didn't even do a halfway decent job of it! The
> > word "Ashkelon" should be spelled phonetically,
> > and it should use the "R" to represent the "L" but guess
> > what? Did you guess?
>
> > THEY DON'T USE THE "R"!
>
> they use a different glyph.
>

THERE IS NO "L" IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 5:00:31 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's an ideogram, you fucking idiot!
>
> > It's not a syllable, it's an ideogram!
>
> > That's what the literal mark means -- that
> > vertical line under it!
>
> > It's not a syllable.

> I was talking about the "r" sign in general

So was I. The literal mark turns it into an
ideogram.

Trond Engen

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 5:04:01 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey:

> On Oct 16, 12:46 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> it is also sometimes used, acc. to Gardiner, to fill up a blank
>>> space.
>>
>> No. Never randomly. Show us where else on this
>> stele they use the literal mark to fill in space.
>>
>>> instead of second guessing the decipherment,
>>
>> I'm not second guessing anything. The "Israel" thing
>> is bullshit. It's made up. It's not "Iffy," there's no room
>> for error here, it's all made up.
>>
>> They didn't even do a halfway decent job of it! The
>> word "Ashkelon" should be spelled phonetically,
>> and it should use the "R" to represent the "L" but guess
>> what? Did you guess?
>>
>> THEY DON'T USE THE "R"!
>>
>
> they use a different glyph.
>
>> Check for yourself. It's on the same line as your fake
>> "Israel," there in the beginning.
>
> IT'S *NOT MINE*

Yusuf, it's not worth your effort. Innocent readers will have seen
through him by now anyway.

We beat this to death with the JTEM item in sci.lang a couple of years
ago, as have others before and after. He's not even ineducable, he's a
malicious jerk with a brain-envy wasting the time of everybody else.

--
Trond Engen

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 5:04:18 AM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They didn't even do a halfway decent job of it! The
> > word "Ashkelon" should be spelled phonetically,
> > and it should use the "R" to represent the "L" but guess
> > what? Did you guess?
>
> > THEY DON'T USE THE "R"!
>
> they use a different glyph.

That's what I just said, idiot.

And, yeah, that utterly destroys the "They used
an ideogram for mouth to represent the "L"
sound" argument.

> > Check for yourself. It's on the same line as your fake
> > "Israel," there in the beginning.
>
> IT'S *NOT MINE*

It is, actually. You stand by it, you defend it despite
all evidence. You needn't do that. You could piss on
it for the religious posturing that it is. But you don't.

It is your position.

Idiot.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 11:44:05 PM10/16/12

to

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > First off, the Egyptians were a semitic people.
>
> Balls.

Um. Okay?

Thanks for sharing.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 11:45:34 PM10/16/12

to

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
d to invent a whole new Egyptian language,
> > one where ideograms are the exact opposite of
> > ideograms, just to claim that I am wrong. It took
> > THAT much, nothing short of inventing a whole new
> > ancient Egyptian language...
>
> It is fairly common knowledge that the signs in a single cartouche can
> be a letter or an ideogram.

Huh? Considering the fact that there is no cartouche
here, I won't even bother...

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 11:49:15 PM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the R" is Gardner D21, the vertical stroke is Z1
>
> then it would represent "mouth" and would not make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you have
an agenda which it conflicts with.

Regardless of what you think makes sense, it is
what is carved into the stone: The mouth sign
as an ideogram (the "R" with the literal mark).

Sorry, but that's how real scholarship works: You
work with what is actually there instead of what you
want to be there...

JTEM

unread,

Oct 16, 2012, 11:55:50 PM10/16/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The stroke 1 was early extended to other uses as well; not only was it
> retained when such words as ... sun', ' face' were employed in their
> derivative meanings of ' day' and ' sight' respectively,

You're saying that ideograms/determinatives could be used more
than one way, but what you're not saying is that they were used
in any way similar to what you are claiming for the Merneptah stele.

You can't say this because it's not true, not even on the
Merneptah stele. As I pointed out, nobody used any "R"
when writing out "Ashkelon" ON THE EXACT SAME LINE
that you're imaging to see Israel.

> *but it is
> sometimes found also with ideograms that have become
> purely phonetic,* the whole ideographic word being
> transferred to a phonetic usage;*

So would now be a good time to remind you that you
are arguing AGAINST a phonetic reading.

Instead of "Ro" you're saying it should be read as "L."

You're an idiot.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:01:45 AM10/17/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a different gyph for /r/,

No, honey, you're a fucking idiot. I'll explain again:

On the exact same line that YOU are pretending
to find the word "Israel" is the word "Ashkelon"
(NOTE THE "L") and it does not use the "R".

Ancient (or even "Very old") languages lacked
uniformity. But, they are uniform WITHIN a text.

Styles differed, customs changed and how a
sign was used might change from age to age,
monument to monument, but it should be
consistent WITHIN a single moment. And your
idiotic INTERPRETATION of the word as
"Israel" relies on an inconsistency.

"Ashkelon" in on the very same line as your
imaginary israel, and it does not use the "R"
sign for the "L" sound, and certain not an
"R" sign that is written as an ideogram.

Lee Olsen

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:01:55 AM10/17/12

to

"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

On Oct 16, 8:55 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So would now be a good time to remind you

http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy
JTEM: "As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."

JTEM

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:09:03 AM10/17/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> why waste your time defending *your* position while

I'm not wasting time. I'm pointing to the facts.

#1. The egyptians did not nor could not write the
word "Israel", and nowhere on the Merneptah stele
will you find such a word.

Everyone agrees to this fact.

#2. The second "R" has a literal mark. It is meant
to be read as an ideogram.

#3. On the very same line as you claim to find the
name "Israel" you can find the name "Ashkelon"
and they did not use any "R" -- let alone the mouth
sign as an ideogram -- to represent the "L".

#4. The INTERPRETATION of the word as "Israel"
is not based on any science, any archaeology or any
scholarly convention. In fact, it's circular nonsense
as you have demonstrated so aptly.

#5. Not a single legitimate explanation for INTERPRETING
the word as "Israel" exists anywhere.

These are all facts, as you have assisted me in demonstrating.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:10:09 AM10/17/12

to

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Here I can help. I have an exhaustive knowledge of Latin and Greek
> roots in /English/. The term could well mean "to be read as a letter".
> I do not know whether it does, but I do not know as much about
> Egyptian as he does, and I am quite sure that you do not.

You're arguing that i know a great deal more than either
of you.

Duh.

JTEM

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:12:32 AM10/17/12

to

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Speaking to me...

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:41:40 AM10/17/12

to

On Oct 17, 12:01 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > a different gyph for /r/,
>
> No, honey, you're a fucking idiot. I'll explain again:
>
> On the exact same line that YOU are pretending
> to find the word "Israel" is the word "Ashkelon"
> (NOTE THE "L") and it does not use the "R".

it uses a different glyph that was pronounced by an initial /r/.

Egyptian is not alphabetic, various glyphs are used at variuos times,
even within a text.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:43:05 AM10/17/12

to

On Oct 16, 11:43 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > that it represemts a Semitic word is nearly beyond doubt
>
> This isn't true at all.
>
> The Libyan tribes weren't supposed to be speakers
> of any Semitic language, and "Libyan tribe" has long
> been the alternative to the bible fantasy you're spewing.

that's by practicaly a minority of one. I said *nearly*

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 12:47:30 AM10/17/12

to

On Oct 16, 11:49 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > the R" is Gardner D21, the vertical stroke is Z1
>
> > then it would represent "mouth" and would not make sense.
>
> It doesn't make sense to you because you have
> an agenda which it conflicts with.

is the word about a mouth or about a people?

>
> Regardless of what you think makes sense, it is
> what is carved into the stone: The mouth sign
> as an ideogram (the "R" with the literal mark).
>

Gardiner D21 with a vertical stroke has been used many times to
represent /r/. look up Gardiner.

> Sorry, but that's how real scholarship works: You
> work with what is actually there instead of what you
> want to be there...

why should I "want" Israel" to be there? you asked for the arguments
in favor of it representing "Israel" and you rejected them. end of
story. if you don't want to hear it, don't ask. I personally would
trust proffessional Egyptologists rather than an anaymous poster in
USENET, but then that's my concern not yours.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 2:53:29 AM10/17/12

to

Actually no.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 3:02:11 AM10/17/12

to

unread,

Oct 17, 2012, 11:00:25 PM10/17/12

to

wow i made a typo... a couple of years ago...

Meanwhile:

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why waste your time defending *your* position while

I'm not wasting time. I'm pointing to the facts.