Message from discussion JTEM shames the sock puppet (PBS: More fake bible "Evidence")
Received: by 10.224.180.141 with SMTP id bu13mr13173517qab.2.1351594236425;
Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.150.16 with SMTP id y16mr3082633yhj.8.1351594236403; Tue,
30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: g8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=8Z9IgQoAAABfgHt8Bu6BTWX41bVJJQgc
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)
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
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:
> 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
> However, they do claim that there was a "Coalition" with
> 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
this ids not in repsonse to JTEM, but I read an article, that that
area was Philistine territory, and that they were probably Philistine
> If the Egyptians were their "Earlier," as you now insist,
> then "king David" was not... nor was any Solomon... no
> > 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.