Received: by 10.224.180.141 with SMTP id bu13mr13173517qab.2.1351594236425;
        Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.150.16 with SMTP id y16mr3082633yhj.8.1351594236403; Tue,
 30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: gf5ni2985800qab.0!nntp.google.com!e17no13752650qar.0!postnews.google.com!g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=128.36.3.163; posting-account=8Z9IgQoAAABfgHt8Bu6BTWX41bVJJQgc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.36.3.163
References: <00c866ca-b76c-4c72-83b1-a6d2d935ceed@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <d813e124-cc81-4787-9422-542b1b13dc11@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
 <92c3e9df-eb2d-4bc1-91d8-47b58737ad07@g4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <80016309-b746-464f-9a47-e25d56e97e1a@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <62f71a21-e55d-4fbb-a7ae-c0c49a018892@s18g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <c6603d39-5d0c-44c1-b5f2-d90eb9e32403@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <ae2125ea-927c-46f4-aabc-cb8932402e02@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <666fc9f1-998c-40a7-ab56-9a52d558e2c1@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <ecf97c3d-7064-4aa8-81e4-06908936c5f6@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
 <06a6f994-c96c-4935-9ed5-c40d1df23793@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <0DLjs.100378$it2.88435@fx22.am4> <833510d1-2a14-4c32-bf9a-b611f3fd7637@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <87b559c7-6463-468b-bf71-305194c1be11@z2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; Media Center PC 6.0; MASA; BRI/2),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <88fd1928-7e08-4150-a663-9375d863987d@g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: JTEM shames the sock puppet (PBS: More fake bible "Evidence")
From: Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:50:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 30, 6:25=A0am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ahab the Israelite" =A0is mentioned in the Kurkh Stele of Shalmanaser
> > III (853 BCE) though I do not yet have a link to its transcription.
>
> No. =A0Oh, there's a claim all right, but he is known to have
> fought the Egyptians yet the Egyptians are strangely missing
> from the boastings of his victories, and this imaginary "Israel"
> is elevated to a major power.
>
> It was Egyptian territory at the time, the Egyptians are known to
> have fought him yet there is no mention of Egypt and there is
> mention of an Israel?
>
> Now, in order to shoehorn all this in you wingnuts re-write the
> entire history of the middle east:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar
>
> Wiki is a great cite as it presents both sides (rather
> unapologetically) of the conflicting-histories here, and in
> so doing illustrate the point.
>
> The above link establishes the missing Egypt, but if you
> visit the relevant page on Egypt Wiki suddenly remembers
> that the Egyptians were a major player and present at the
> battle:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osorkon_II
>
> However, they do claim that there was a "Coalition" with
> Israel...
>
> Why? =A0Because they need to in order to explain the
> claimed "Presence" of an Israel, even as they refuse
> to even address the absence of Egypt.
>
> > and the last Egyptian campaign in Palestine was earlier,
>
> Check & mate...
>
> You've now lowered yourself to the point where you defend
> the bible by attacking the bible.
>
> This whole "Israel" and "House of David" nonsense is
> predicated on a kingdom of Israel existing in the precise
> place where you now testify that the Egyptians had
> conquered.

this ids not in repsonse to JTEM, but I read an article, that that
area was Philistine territory, and that they were probably Philistine
vassals.

>
> If the Egyptians were their "Earlier," as you now insist,
> then "king David" was not... nor was any Solomon... no
> Israel.
>
> > so the archaeology does show other than Egyptian
> > occupation.
>
> No. =A0Not at all. =A0In fact, you've made a good argument for
> calling THE TEXT a forgery.
>
> You point out that no such kingdom, no such dynasties
> could have possibly existed (the area was controlled by
> the Egyptians) and that the texts in question leave the
> Egyptians out, when we know they were there.