Israel = Jezreel ?
Erland Gadde
important region, the Jezreel valley. Jezreel is mentioned some times
in the Bible, and it has been excavated by archaelogists. It seems
that the Jezreel region was crucial in the formation in the ancient
(northern) Israelite kingdom.
To me, what is striking is the linguistic similarity between "Jezreel"
and "Israel", but I have never seen this fact commented upon in the
literature.
Now, isn't it possible that the ethnic group that would become known
as Israelites arose in the Jezreel area, and that "Jezreel" and
"Israel" are originally the same name?
The earliest known extra biblical reference to Israel is the Merneptah
stele from about 1200 BC, where Pharaoh Merneptah claims he defeated
Gaza, Gezer, Yanoam, and Israel, Since Gaza etc. are cities, isn't it
plausible that "Israel" also refers to a city, that is, Jezreel?
Matt Giwer
> Jezreel was ian mportant city in ancient Israel,
There was not ancient Israel. Now what is Jezreel?
--
Hodie quinto Kalendas Novembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sun Sep 27 08:07:27 EDT 2009
Peter Alaca
>
Piss off
=====================================================
Sci.Archaeology, established in May 1991, is an
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of archaeology in its many aspects.
=====================================================
*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.
2. To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be in
a publishable form.
3. To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
(e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
exact site locations).
4. To keep each other informed on upcoming events
of interest to social science researchers and
computing in the field of archaeology.
=====================================================
*End of charter*
=====================================================
=====================================================
*What is Archaeology*?
=====================================================
"*{Archaeology is] a subdiscipline of anthropology.
Anthropology is the study of humankind.
* Archaeology is the study of the human past
through material remains.
- Material remains are collectively referred to
as the archaeological record. This includes
artifacts (e.g., stone tools, ceramic vessels);
features(e.g., housepits, hearths); and ecofacts
(e.g., animal bones, plant remains).
* Archaeologists have three main goals:
1. Reconstruct Culture History: understand the
distribution of archaeological remains through
time and space.
2. Reconstruct Past Lifeways: determine past behavior
through material remains.
3. Explain the Process of Culture Change: understand
how and why cultures change through time.
*Forms of Archaeological Data*
* Artifacts: portable objects whose form has been
created or modified by human activity (e.g.,
projectile points, pottery vessels). Artifacts
retain their appearance after the archaeologist
takes them from the ground.
* Features: non-portable artifacts that cannot be
removed from the ground without altering or
destroying their original form (e.g., housepits,
burials, hearths).
* Ecofacts: non-artifactual material remains that are
not directly created or modified by human activity
but have cultural relevance and provide information
about past human behavior (e.g., animal bones,
sediment, pollen).
* Sites: spatial clusters of artifacts, features, and
ecofacts. Sites identify where humans have occupied
the landscape
(e.g., Birch Creek, Stonehenge).
* Regions: the largest definable spatial clusters of
archaeological data. Regions can be a geographical,
ecological, or cultural concept. Definition of a
region allows the archaeologist to investigate a
wider range of past activities that extend beyond
a single site (e.g., Great Basin, Columbia Plateau,
Southwest)."
Archaeological Field Methods: Principles of Excavation
http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/afm/afm_princexc.htm
=====================================================
"Archaeology is usually defined as the study of the
human past through material culture, although
archaeologists are increasingly arguing that a better
definition would be the study of human behaviour
through material culture, making it a much broader
discipline and one of relevance to the contemporary
world. The most important aspect of the discipline is
that archaeologists study the physical changes human
beings have made to their world. Archaeology looks at
the artefacts (the tools, ornaments and other
objects), the structures (buildings, tombs and other
enclosed spaces) and landscapes (field systems,
settlements, communication routes and so on) that
people have been creating for the seven million or so
years we have been creatures distinct from the other
great apes."
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/index.html
=====================================================
"Archaeology is concerned with cultural development
and variation through time. It involves the
reconstruction of past human behaviour through the
study of material remains recovered by field survey
and excavation. Archaeology encompasses a wide variety
of analytical and experimental methods and techniques
which draw on both the natural and social sciences."
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/departments/index.cfm?P=9142
=====================================================
"Archaeology is the study of past cultural behaviour,
from the beginnings of the human species to events
that happened yesterday, through the material remains,
or artefacts, that people leave behind. By carefully
applying scientific techniques in excavation and
analysis of their findings, archaeologists attempt to
reconstruct past lifeways and understand why different
customs developed and evolved.
Archaeology is a part of anthropology, because it
studies individuals and their different cultures, even
if limited to the past. This is the most interesting
aspect of archaeology: it is a way to understand
humanity and ourselves. Archaeology is also a part of
history, but it is more reliable sometimes because
while history uses essentially written documents,
archaeology uses material evidence. A description of
facts can be very precious, but if we have only one
description, or descriptions from only one point of
view, we can not be sure to know a true part of the
past. Individuals in fact can lie or simply see things
in a convenient way."
"History is an interpretation of the past based on
ancient/old writings. Archaeology is different from
history especially for the methods used. It can help
and complement history by offering studies on
materials to be compared with documents to have a
clearer idea of how the interpretation was done. But
also archaeology, when beginning from an evidence
arrives to an inference, interprets data; for this
reason archaeologists must be careful trying to
explain the background culture in the present they
have and which part of the evidence they focused: an
objective interpretation is impossible. History uses
archaeology also for the periods when written
documents were not available, particularly prehistory,
but more extensively for any period for which there
are no documents available."
Andrea Vianello
http://www.geocities.com/andreavi/1.htm
Università Ca' Foscari ,Venezia. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia
<http://lettere.unive.it/materiale_didattico/archeologia_egea/1.htm>
=====================================================
*Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research*
by Garrett Fagan
<http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=5>
=====================================================
igor
Choke on this, Giwer!!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Israel.svg
Matt Giwer
What is a high school level site worth to anyone?
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Mon Sep 28 01:55:30 EDT 2009
JTEM
Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The earliest known extra biblical reference to Israel is
> the Merneptah stele from about 1200 BC,
Not even as a sick joke.
In reality, there is nothing to suggest "Israel" on the stele.
Nothing.
Matt Giwer
> To me, what is striking is the linguistic similarity between "Jezreel"
> and "Israel", but I have never seen this fact commented upon in the
> literature.
If you want something striking think of ISis Ra and El and you might get an
idea how the storytellers invented the name Israel. You might also realize why
the meaning of the name had to be invented and explained to people who
supposedly spoke the language -- hint they did not speak the language.
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Tue Sep 29 03:47:29 EDT 2009
Erland Gadde
Really? Then, how come it has been suggested?
Erland Gadde
> Erland Gadde wrote:
> > Jezreel was ian mportant city in ancient Israel,
>
> There was not ancient Israel. Now what is Jezreel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_stele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith
I'm reading "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" by Israel
Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Their view of ancient Israel
differ very much from the Bible's version, but there is no doubt there
was an ancient Ísraelite kingdom that was destroyed by Assyria in the
8th century BC.
Agamemnon
"Erland Gadde" <erlan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0bed36b-1924-410d...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Most probably or to Syria since the land as a whole was called
Syria-Palestine and was part of Egypt in 1200 BC.
Matt Giwer
Because there are believers of course.
As only believers try to get away with bait and switch the dating is to early
to be biblical Israel which is the only one of interest. Promise the Israel of
the bible and try to get away with making a few glyphs mean a different Israel
is amusing but of little interest save to the skeptics.
If this does in fact say Israel then there was in fact no biblical Israel
because this is the only one known and it is not the one in the bible.
--
The West Bank continues to demonstrate Israel is a third world country which
is unable to enforce its own laws on its own citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4175
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Sep 29 23:43:41 EDT 2009
Whiskers
> Erland Gadde wrote:
>> On 29 Sep, 00:38, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The earliest known extra biblical reference to Israel is
>>>> the Merneptah stele from about 1200 BC,
>>> Not even as a sick joke.
>>> In reality, there is nothing to suggest "Israel" on the stele.
>>> Nothing.
>
>> Really? Then, how come it has been suggested?
>
> Because there are believers of course.
>
> As only believers try to get away with bait and switch the dating
> is to early to be biblical Israel which is the only one of interest.
> Promise the Israel of the bible and try to get away with making a few
> glyphs mean a different Israel is amusing but of little interest save to
> the skeptics.
>
> If this does in fact say Israel then there was in fact no biblical
> Israel because this is the only one known and it is not the one in the
> bible.
It almost certainly /is/ "the one in the Bible", if the reading of the
hieroglyphs is anything like correct.
The reference to 'Israel' occurs in a sentence that also lists the cities
of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam; so the 'Israel' mentioned is likely to be
in the same general area as those places, don't you think?
Also, whereas 'Israel' is given the attributes of "a community of people"
it is notable that it is not given the attributes of "a city or state". So
'Israel' seems to be a diffuse non-centralized entity - which is precisely
what the Bible describes for the date of the stele (c 1200 BC). It's the
'age of the Judges'; before Saul, Solomon, and David, pulled the Israelites
together and conquered Jerusalem to start a 'nation state' of their own.
So this 'Israel' may not then have been a 'nation state', but it was still
a big enough power to be listed alongside other significant powers thought
worthy for a Pharoah to claim to have defeated and rendered less
threatening ("their grain is no more", ie their food stocks have been
destroyed so they'll be too hungry to fight for some time - a standard
claim for a Pharoah wanting to get some positive spin for himself at home).
The next oldest stone monument to mention 'Israel' is the Mesha stele,
from the 9th century BC, which /does/ talk of "Omri king of Israel" -
again confirming the Bible narrative which by this date does have Israel
as a kingdom (although the Moabites and Israelites seem to disagree as to
which king was ruling Israel when the Moabites defeated him - and who
actually won; but that's propaganda for you!). This stele is written in a
very early form of Hebrew, using the Phoenician script.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Matt Giwer
> On 2009-09-30, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Erland Gadde wrote:
>>> On 29 Sep, 00:38, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The earliest known extra biblical reference to Israel is
>>>>> the Merneptah stele from about 1200 BC,
>>>> Not even as a sick joke.
>>>> In reality, there is nothing to suggest "Israel" on the stele.
>>>> Nothing.
>>> Really? Then, how come it has been suggested?
>> Because there are believers of course.
>> As only believers try to get away with bait and switch the dating
>> is to early to be biblical Israel which is the only one of interest.
>> Promise the Israel of the bible and try to get away with making a few
>> glyphs mean a different Israel is amusing but of little interest save to
>> the skeptics.
>> If this does in fact say Israel then there was in fact no biblical
>> Israel because this is the only one known and it is not the one in the
>> bible.
> It almost certainly /is/ "the one in the Bible", if the reading of the
> hieroglyphs is anything like correct.
The inscription is dated before the one in the bible existed therefore it is
not the one in the bible.
Is there anything else?
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu Oct 1 02:53:02 EDT 2009
Whiskers
If two independent records each support the other, why do you insist that
both must be wrong?
Erland Gadde
> > hieroglyphs is anything like correct.
>
> The inscription is dated before the one in the bible existed therefore it is
> not the one in the bible.
>
> Is there anything else?
OK, there was almost certainly no Israelite kingdom in 1200 BC. But
how do you know that at that time there wasn't an ethnic group called
Israel, that centuries later formed a kingdom which was conquered by
Assyria about 722 BC, and whose history, in heavily distorted form,
came to be described in the Bible?
Dom
> Jezreel was ian mportant city in ancient Israel, located in an
> important region, the Jezreel valley. Jezreel is mentioned some times
> in the Bible, and it has been excavated by archaelogists. It seems
> that the Jezreel region was crucial in the formation in the ancient
> (northern) Israelite kingdom.
>
> To me, what is striking is the linguistic similarity between "Jezreel"
> and "Israel", but I have never seen this fact commented upon in the
> literature.
Several years ago, I heard a TV discussion in which someone speculated
that the name Israel (IsRaEl) was coined by a group formed by the
merger of:
1. some worshippers of Isis.
2. some worshippers of Ra
3. some worshippers of El, the chief God of the Canaanites.
Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
that, based on archeological evidence:
1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
presumably against the aristocracy.
2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
I would appreciate more information.
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> It almost certainly /is/ "the one in the Bible", if the
> reading of the hieroglyphs is anything like correct.
No. You can prove this yourself by posting other ANCIENT
examples here where an 'R' (Ro) with a literal mark is used
to represent the letter 'L'.
I can show you examples where it wasn't: Alexander the
Great and Cleopatra -- two names with the letter 'L' and
neither using a mouth sign (the 'R' or 'Ro') for the 'L'.
Here's Alexander the Great:
http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/5/U/q/2/CartoucheAlexander.jpg
And Cleopatra (from Champollion's notes):
http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/ichampollion.jpg
NOTE: ANCIENT example, ANCIENT. I am aware of
plenty of MODERN "alphabets" which use the mouth
sign for 'L' -- which they do so based on the premise that
the "Israel Stele" proves that it's accurate.
> The reference to 'Israel' occurs in a sentence that also
> lists the cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam; so the
> 'Israel' mentioned is likely to be in the same general
> area as those places, don't you think?
Only it doesn't mention Israel at all. But what you do in
the above is an exact representation of how bible names
come to be "found" where they don't exist.
You assume that there was an Israel and that it was
located in a specific area, then you further assume that
any text which mentions the general vicinity must also
mention Israel... because it was there... or so you assumed.
This is called "Circular Reasoning."
> Also, whereas 'Israel' is given the attributes of "a community
> of people" it is notable that it is not given the attributes of
> "a city or state".
Which completely destroys everything you said before.
So you not only arrived at "Israel" via circular reasoning, but
you abandoned that reasoning even as you maintain the
conclusion.
That would get you thrown off of any high school debating
team.
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> If two independent records
So you're saying that there's not one but two independent
records which say that Israel wasn't a place -- not a
kingdom and not a city, and that this Israel was conquered
in the Levant by Egypt?
You're making this stuff up.
There is a single reference to "Israel" -- the bible -- and this
single record is used (as you yourself keep demonstrating)
to justify the "finding" of the name even where it doesn't
exist.
Someone decided that "YSRIR" had to be "Israel" because,
like you, they operated under the assumption that the bible
is accurate, and so there HAD TO BE a mention of "Israel."
JTEM
Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, there was almost certainly no Israelite kingdom
> in 1200 BC. But how do you know that at that time
> there wasn't an ethnic group called Israel, that
> centuries later formed a kingdom which was conquered
> by Assyria about 722 BC, and whose history, in
> heavily distorted form, came to be described in the Bible?
You've completely missed the point.
It's a given that there /could have been/ all manner of
people & events that we don't know about. But we
can't help that. What we can do though is deal with what
we do know, not what we don't know.
That's how science, and presumably archaeology, works.
You don't bow to every "What if" that people can think of.
Instead, you deal with the facts, deal with the evidence.
Whiskers
>
> Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> It almost certainly /is/ "the one in the Bible", if the
>> reading of the hieroglyphs is anything like correct.
>
> No. You can prove this yourself by posting other ANCIENT
> examples here where an 'R' (Ro) with a literal mark is used
> to represent the letter 'L'.
[...]
I'm not fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I suspect no-one
posting to these groups is, so all we can do about interpreting them is to
look for what real experts have written. I know there are some who think
the characters on the Mernepteh stele usually read as "isrir" or "ysrir"
or other varients of such syllables, refer not to "Israel" but to
"Jezreel" or even "Syria", or to "the people with side-locks". But those
who think the inscription is a reference to a population collectively
known as "Israel" seem to carry most weight.
I'd be interested to know what you (and others) think of these two
articles: <http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm>
<http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/433>.
Italo
Erland Gadde <erlan...@gmail.com> schreef:
I bet that 'Israel' was originally 'Jezreel', which may be explained as
"god's yield of sowing-seed" or the like. (reminds of Greek Spartoi,
"the sown ones" - though that probably is a folk-etymological
interpretation of Lydian 'sparda' (Etruscan 'spur-') "city".)
While figuratively it may mean "the chosen people", it could be that
the 'seed' mentioned in the Merneptah inscription is a literal
translation. This Jezreel/Israel was not the town Jezreel but an
umbrella name for this amalgam of tribes (of various origin, but mostly
already present in Palestine) that aligned with the Apiru. IMO
'Jezreel' later morphed into 'Israel' because of analogy with
'Palaistine'. 'Israel' as name for Jacob as eponymic ancestor "he who
wrestled with god" is the same as 'Palaistinos', "the
wrestler" (another name for Pelusios, the eponym of Pelusium (and
beyond that perhaps referring to the Hyksos seat at Avaris, Goshen)
As 'palaistinos' "wrestler" is Greek this supposes there were also
'Greeks' (Danaoi, Iamani, Achaioi, etc.) in Palestine at the time.
--
Boycott American products
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> I'm not fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I
> suspect no-one posting to these groups is, so all
> we can do about interpreting them is to look for
> what real experts have written.
The "Real Expert" originally read Yrir, not "Israel."
One of the very first transliterations I every saw (if not
the very first) was from an "Expert," and it was:
"AJSRJAR(W)."
> I know there are some who think the
There isn't a consensus regarding how to transliterate
the signs.
> I'd be interested to know what you (and others) think
> of these two articles:
> <http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm>
This one is an attempt to explain away the total lack of
evidence for the Biblical accounts. You'll notice, it DOES
come to some pretty strong, PRO biblical conclusions
though.
It talks about "Israel" as if it were a fact, though there is
clearly nothing to identify this "Israel" he speaks of.
Though I often thought, if there was any factual basis at
all in biblical accounts, that the truth had to be something
akin to what they say here.
My issue isn't the theory, it's the way they present the
theory as if it were fact, when there is no evidence for it
at all.
Again, I say this as someone who often suspected something
very, *Very* similar.
In past years I've even argued it with the Giwer Nazis, pointing
to the cultural centers to the north, in Syria in particular.
> <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/433>.
This page is completely devoid of any value.
It's a waste of time.
Matt Giwer
It can be used as an example of a conclusion that is both arbitrary and
capricious.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Oct 2 00:32:51 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
The only issue under discussion is the existence of biblical Israel. It does
not matter what, if anything may or may not have been distorted. What you
choose to BELIEVE IN solely because it is in anthology of fiction, it is NOT
the Israel described in the bible. Therefore there was NO biblical Israel.
Why is it so hard for you believers to grasp bait and switch is a con game
played on fools? Is it too hard to admit you are a sucker?
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Oct 2 00:37:54 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
There are two records whose independence is not established which may or may
not use the same word. They do not refer to the same thing. Therefore they do
not support each other.
--
If a gay kills a gay is it a love crime?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4178
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Fri Oct 2 00:42:55 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
After all the words are analyzed you say there was no biblical Israel. Why
bother with the post?
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Fri Oct 2 00:50:58 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Sep 27, 7:40 am, Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jezreel was ian mportant city in ancient Israel, located in an
>> important region, the Jezreel valley. Jezreel is mentioned some times
>> in the Bible, and it has been excavated by archaelogists. It seems
>> that the Jezreel region was crucial in the formation in the ancient
>> (northern) Israelite kingdom.
>> To me, what is striking is the linguistic similarity between "Jezreel"
>> and "Israel", but I have never seen this fact commented upon in the
>> literature.
> Several years ago, I heard a TV discussion in which someone speculated
> that the name Israel (IsRaEl) was coined by a group formed by the
> merger of:
> 1. some worshippers of Isis.
> 2. some worshippers of Ra
> 3. some worshippers of El, the chief God of the Canaanites.
A quite old speculation. It has some sense to it whereas the bible origin of
the "name" makes no sense at all unless it was being explained to someone like
Greek speakers.
> Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
> that, based on archeological evidence:
> 1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
> presumably against the aristocracy.
> 2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
> various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
> I would appreciate more information.
Do not take cable shows on bible stuff seriously. There are no Hebrews
outside of Genesis. There is no evidence of any culture in Palestine as
described in the bible ever existing. Making up stories about revolts is bait
and switch.
There was either an Israel as described in the bible or there was not. There
is no other Israel.
--
The West Bank continues to demonstrate Israel is a third world country which
is unable to enforce its own laws on its own citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4175
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Fri Oct 2 00:51:58 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
narrator refers to "Israel", while the Egyptians refer to "Hebrews",
about whom the Egyptians knew nothing, except that they may have been on
the verge of unity and presumably cared less. In Samuel II there are
references to "Hebrews" *in* Saul's army, in other words *not* "children
of Israel". It is important to understand that known facts have been
spun to support a later development since the dawn of literacy. Billy
the Kid existed: this is not proof that Brett Maverick existed.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Dom
> Dom wrote:
[snip]
> > Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
> > that, based on archeological evidence:
> > 1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
> > presumably against the aristocracy.
> > 2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
> > various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
> > I would appreciate more information.
>
> Do not take cable shows on bible stuff seriously. There are no Hebrews
> outside of Genesis. There is no evidence of any culture in Palestine as
> described in the bible ever existing. Making up stories about revolts is bait
> and switch.
After doing a Google search, I have concluded that this program was
the two-hour NOVA special "The Bible’s Buried Secrets," which is
reviewed at:
http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/review-bibles-buried-secrets.asp
and is available at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/
When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists share your
views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh, Astarte, etc.
The following is part of the review in BAR at the top link.
================
BAR readers will perhaps find the film’s examination of this
historicity of the conquest the most interesting part of the special.
It explores the massive Canaanite remains at Jericho, uncovered by
John Garstang in the 1930’s, and Ai, now being excavated by Hani Nur
el-Din, to show that they predate the time of Joshua’s supposed
conquest. The film next surveys the destruction of Hazor, which dates
to around 1250 B.C.E. Its current excavators, Amnon Ben-Tor and Sharon
Zuckerman, give viewers some insight into the problematic nature of
archaeological interpretation. While Ben-Tor believes he has uncovered
confirmation of the Israelite conquest, his co-director Zuckerman
views the same remains as evidence of an internal social revolt of
Hazor’s poor and oppressed against their elites. If the latter is
correct, as the film notes, there is no clear confirmation of the
biblical conquest.
The documentary next explores the related and problematic issue of
Israelite ethnicity, and how to detect it in the archaeological
record. Israel Finkelstein introduces viewers to his survey of the
central hill country that has uncovered evidence of rapid population
growth. The producers incorporate clips of interviews with such
distinguished experts as Amnon Ben-Tor, Israel Finkelstein, William
Dever, Peter Machinist, and Abraham Faust, to explore this evidence.
These and other scholars offer different opinions as to whether
ceramic and architectural remains, such as the floor-room house, are
markers of distinctive Israelite identity, or merely show a
continuation of earlier Canaanite culture.
JTEM
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
> share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
> Astarte, etc.
This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
Weland
Not quite. Abram and Joseph are both explicitly referred to as
"hebrew"; and no one else in the Genesis text is so-called. Israel is
used chiefly to refer to the individual man in the tale renamed Israel
and his immediate children ("the sons of Israel" refers not to a people,
but to the characters sons in the story)
> about whom the Egyptians knew nothing, except that they may have been on
> the verge of unity and presumably cared less. In Samuel II there are
> references to "Hebrews" *in* Saul's army, in other words *not* "children
> of Israel".
Except that Saul's entire army is called "the camp of the Hebrews"--in
fact, interestingly, the text uses "Israel" in the authorial voice, but
"hebrews" when a foreigner (Philistine, Egyptian, etc) is speaking or
when speaking to foreigners (Jonah, "I am a Hebrew" for example). In
other words, the terms seem to be used interchangeably in the text:
Israel for those on the inside, Hebrews to those on the outside. I find
no basis for your claim that the "hebrews" referred to there are
"children of Israel" and invite you to supply textual confirmation.
Weland
> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Dom wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
>>>that, based on archeological evidence:
>>>1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
>>>presumably against the aristocracy.
>>>2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
>>>various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
>>>I would appreciate more information.
>>
>> Do not take cable shows on bible stuff seriously. There are no Hebrews
>>outside of Genesis. There is no evidence of any culture in Palestine as
>>described in the bible ever existing. Making up stories about revolts is bait
>>and switch.
>
>
> After doing a Google search, I have concluded that this program was
> reviewed at:
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/review-bibles-buried-secrets.asp
>
> and is available at:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/
>
> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists share your
> views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh, Astarte, etc.
No, they don't. If you compare what Giwer says against what the people
in the program say, you'll notice some key differences.
Among those differences is that the folk in the program have read the
text that Giwer hasn't. That text tells us that ancient Israel was
polytheistic, and that the number one cult other than Yahweh was
Astarte. The archeology supports this.
igor
This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE7891B7ACA&index=0&playnext=1
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
It doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said or what I
was responding to. Instead, it's "Proof" of something that nobody
here has ever disputed: There are many who do insist on seeing
"Israel" even where it doesn't exist.
By the way: The episode was made while Bush was President,
a Reich Wing extremists was the head of PBS and the extremist
had a reputation for FORCING Reich Wing (and that includes
conservative religious) views.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
You're welcome.
Erland Gadde
> > how do you know that at that time there wasn't an ethnic group called
> > Israel, that centuries later formed a kingdom which was conquered by
> > Assyria about 722 BC, and whose history, in heavily distorted form,
> > came to be described in the Bible?
>
> The only issue under discussion is the existence of biblical Israel.
No. The issue under discussion is the exístence of ANCIENT Israel. You
claim there is not (in post no 2 in this thread), despite evidence in
Assyrian, Aramaean, Moabite etc, records.
> It does
> not matter what, if anything may or may not have been distorted. What you
> choose to BELIEVE IN solely because it is in anthology of fiction, it is NOT
> the Israel described in the bible. Therefore there was NO biblical Israel.
So, what you are saying is
1. Not every word in the Bible is true.
2. Therefore, there was no biblical Israel.
3. Therefore, there was no ancient Israel.
Ridiculous!
> Why is it so hard for you believers to grasp bait and switch is a con game
> played on fools? Is it too hard to admit you are a sucker?
I don't know about you, but I am an atheist.
igor
> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> > > > When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
> > > > share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
> > > > Astarte, etc.
>
> > > This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
> > > which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
> > > of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
> > > not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
> > This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
>
> It doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said or what I
> was responding to. Instead, it's "Proof" of something that nobody
> here has ever disputed: There are many who do insist on seeing
> "Israel" even where it doesn't exist.
When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist professor
Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel", contrary to what
young comedian JTEM' opinion is, it is"Israel", period...
>
> By the way: The episode was made while Bush was President,
> a Reich Wing extremists was the head of PBS and the extremist
> had a reputation for FORCING Reich Wing (and that includes
> conservative religious) views.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
>
> You're welcome.
Are you claiming that all of the featured historians are involved in
some kind of conspiracy with extremists??? What is your evidence,
professor JTEM? Hilarious...
Matt Giwer
> On 2 Okt, 06:41, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Erland Gadde wrote:
>>> OK, there was almost certainly no Israelite kingdom in 1200 BC. But
>>> how do you know that at that time there wasn't an ethnic group called
>>> Israel, that centuries later formed a kingdom which was conquered by
>>> Assyria about 722 BC, and whose history, in heavily distorted form,
>>> came to be described in the Bible?
>> The only issue under discussion is the existence of biblical Israel.
>
> No. The issue under discussion is the exístence of ANCIENT Israel. You
> claim there is not (in post no 2 in this thread), despite evidence in
> Assyrian, Aramaean, Moabite etc, records.
Same thing. The only ancient Israel is the biblical Israel found in the
bible. Without the bible Jezreel is Jezreel with no further speculation. You
believers are trying to connect this name to the fictional biblical Israel
which is also the only "ancient" Israel.
>> It does
>> not matter what, if anything may or may not have been distorted. What you
>> choose to BELIEVE IN solely because it is in anthology of fiction, it is NOT
>> the Israel described in the bible. Therefore there was NO biblical Israel..
> So, what you are saying is
> 1. Not every word in the Bible is true.
It is desperation to hold everything is true which is not incontrovertibly
false. It is indicated by the "not every word" gambit. It has been known for
enough decades that every time science learns more about something found in
the bible it is always the believers who have to retreat. A rational person,
unlike a believer, shitcanned all of it decades ago. Believers are always of
the opinion that after more than a century of nothing but retreats the last
retreat was the final one. They have never been right yet they hope against
all hope they are right this time.
> 2. Therefore, there was no biblical Israel.
> 3. Therefore, there was no ancient Israel.
> Ridiculous!
That is not what I said at all. I shall correct you.
1. Nothing in the bible is true. There is only real history and archaeology
and some happenstance connections in the bible with the majority of the
connections argued into the bible because of religious tradition. If one
pleads to distortion or exaggeration one has to also plead beyond all
recognition which makes a farce of the idea they are the "same."
For example there is a happenstance mention of Egypt in Genesis and Exodus.
But as the descriptions of Egypt are unrelated to the real ancient Egypt any
connection between the two is only argumentation based upon religious
tradition. In other words, the Scorpion King movie gets more right about
ancient Egypt than Exodus therefore Exodus cannot be distinguished from fiction.
2. There was no Israel because the only Israel is the biblical Israel. There
is no such thing found in archaeology or history.
3. Ancient Israel and biblical Israel are the same thing as the bible is the
only place where Israel is found.
I know you will resist understanding such obvious things.
>> Why is it so hard for you believers to grasp bait and switch is a con game
>> played on fools? Is it too hard to admit you are a sucker?
> I don't know about you, but I am an atheist.
A believer is anyone who believes traditions whose only basis is found in
religion. Claiming atheism while continuing to accept religious traditions
indicates only trendy atheism. It is very popular among zionists.
--
Between religion and science, only religion can retreat.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4185
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Oct 2 21:50:16 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
You can have all the hapiru you want. I am talking about Hebrews and they
are described in Exodus. If you have someone even with the same name who are
not as described in Exodus then you are not talking about the people in the
bible. Bait and switch is not acceptable.
> Now, in Genesis, the narrator refers to "Israel",
There is also nothing in the real world that matches the description of
Israel any place in the OT so there was none. No bait and switch.
> while the Egyptians refer to "Hebrews", about whom the Egyptians knew
nothing, except that they may have been on the verge of unity and presumably
cared less. In Samuel II there are references to "Hebrews" *in* Saul's army,
in other words *not* "children of Israel". It is important to understand that
known facts have been spun to support a later development since the dawn of
literacy. Billy the Kid existed: this is not proof that Brett Maverick existed.
Don't matter in the least. There are none that match any description in
the OT therefore the OT is fiction. Whoever wrote Sam II was a bullshit
artist. Don't get suckered by it.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Fri Oct 2 22:22:49 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Clearly the Septuagint was sorely in need of a good editor when it was
written but one should not conjecture beyond what can be explained most simply
by an incompetent editor.
--
What is the point of woshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Fri Oct 2 22:25:49 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
The BAR is a magazine of the newsstand variety not journal in any sense of
the word. As such it no professional standing nor do any of the opinions
expressed in it.
> It explores the massive Canaanite remains at Jericho, uncovered by
> John Garstang in the 1930’s, and Ai, now being excavated by Hani Nur
> el-Din, to show that they predate the time of Joshua’s supposed
> conquest. The film next surveys the destruction of Hazor, which dates
> to around 1250 B.C.E. Its current excavators, Amnon Ben-Tor and Sharon
> Zuckerman, give viewers some insight into the problematic nature of
> archaeological interpretation. While Ben-Tor believes he has uncovered
> confirmation of the Israelite conquest, his co-director Zuckerman
> views the same remains as evidence of an internal social revolt of
> Hazor’s poor and oppressed against their elites. If the latter is
> correct, as the film notes, there is no clear confirmation of the
> biblical conquest.
> The documentary next explores the related and problematic issue of
> Israelite ethnicity, and how to detect it in the archaeological
> record. Israel Finkelstein introduces viewers to his survey of the
> central hill country that has uncovered evidence of rapid population
> growth. The producers incorporate clips of interviews with such
> distinguished experts as Amnon Ben-Tor, Israel Finkelstein, William
> Dever, Peter Machinist, and Abraham Faust, to explore this evidence.
> These and other scholars offer different opinions as to whether
> ceramic and architectural remains, such as the floor-room house, are
> markers of distinctive Israelite identity, or merely show a
> continuation of earlier Canaanite culture.
Which if it was as described, it did not examine the evidence from an
archaeological point of view. Interpretation of the evidence in the context of
the bible is not science and therefore it is not archaeology.
--
God gave Israel the Ten Commandments because they
were in such desperate need of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4177
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Fri Oct 2 22:28:20 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 2, 1:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>>>> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
>>>>> share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
>>>>> Astarte, etc.
>>>> This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
>>>> which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
>>>> of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
>>>> not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
>>> This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
>> It doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said or what I
>> was responding to. Instead, it's "Proof" of something that nobody
>> here has ever disputed: There are many who do insist on seeing
>> "Israel" even where it doesn't exist.
> When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist professor
> Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel", contrary to what
> young comedian JTEM' opinion is, it is"Israel", period...
What, pray tell, is an Egyptologist? Where is he a professor? What exactly
does he teach? What are his degrees?
The problem is it is trivial to find believers with all the degrees and
credentials needed who still say things to the media they could never get
published outside of a magazine. You know that.
>> By the way: The episode was made while Bush was President,
>> a Reich Wing extremists was the head of PBS and the extremist
>> had a reputation for FORCING Reich Wing (and that includes
>> conservative religious) views.
>>
>> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
> Are you claiming that all of the featured historians are involved in
> some kind of conspiracy with extremists??? What is your evidence,
> professor JTEM? Hilarious...
Google Elad+Jerusalem and see how well funded they are -- even to the point
of tax fraud in the US.
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Fri Oct 2 22:36:50 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Dom wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dom wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>> Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
>>>> that, based on archeological evidence:
>>>> 1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
>>>> presumably against the aristocracy.
>>>> 2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
>>>> various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
>>>> I would appreciate more information.
>>>
>>> Do not take cable shows on bible stuff seriously. There are no
>>> Hebrews
>>> outside of Genesis. There is no evidence of any culture in Palestine as
>>> described in the bible ever existing. Making up stories about revolts
>>> is bait
>>> and switch.
>>
>>
>> After doing a Google search, I have concluded that this program was
>> reviewed at:
>>
>> http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/review-bibles-buried-secrets.asp
>>
>> and is available at:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/
>>
>> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists share your
>> views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh, Astarte, etc.
>
> No, they don't. If you compare what Giwer says against what the people
> in the program say, you'll notice some key differences.
>
> Among those differences is that the folk in the program have read the
> text that Giwer hasn't. That text tells us that ancient Israel was
> polytheistic, and that the number one cult other than Yahweh was
> Astarte. The archeology supports this.
Of course there are key differences. The archaeology shows the local gods
were Yahweh and Ashara as were El and Ashrit of Ugarit. The archaeology does
NOT show separate cults. The archaeology shows both gods in the same
votaries. There is no evidence I am aware of as to when the Yahweh cult
diverged from the worship of both as a pair.
The issue here is only trying to wean believers away from the religious
traditions regarding the supposed age of the OT anthology. Based upon what
they imagine the age to be they "find" evidence IN THE BIBLE and only there
that the Ashara cult was eliminated in the 3rd c. BC while we know it was
active even in Jerusalem in the 2nd c. AD.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Fri Oct 2 22:45:51 EDT 2009
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist
> professor Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel",
The problem is that you're stopping there, even though you already
know for a fact that it doesn't say "Israel" (it's INTERPRETED as
a reference to "Israel"), and even though you know for a fact that
plenty of people with impressive credentials dispute the "Israel"
interpretation.
You can't be unbiased even as you choose to avoid everyone &
everything that contradicts you.
> Are you claiming
I am not making any claims. It is a fact that PBS was under the
control of a Reich-wing conservative who was rather open with
his intentions of injecting a conservative Reich-wing bias into
PBS programs, and it is a fact that there are plenty of people who
argue against the "Israel" interpretation.
YOU, on the other hand, are strongly implying that it would
require some sort of international conspiracy in order for these
facts to be true. As YOU are making the claim, feel free to
support it.
Whiskers
> Weland wrote:
>> Dom wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
> The issue here is only trying to wean believers away from the
> religious traditions regarding the supposed age of the OT anthology.
> Based upon what they imagine the age to be they "find" evidence IN THE
> BIBLE and only there that the Ashara cult was eliminated in the 3rd c. BC
> while we know it was active even in Jerusalem in the 2nd c. AD.
Can you give chapter and verse for that Biblical evidence?
Matt Giwer
There is no such thing as evidence from the bible in this matter. Did not
find in quotes make that obvious?
--
Hodie quinto Nonas Novembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sat Oct 3 06:10:05 EDT 2009
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-03, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Weland wrote:
>>>> Dom wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The issue here is only trying to wean believers away from the
>>> religious traditions regarding the supposed age of the OT anthology.
>>> Based upon what they imagine the age to be they "find" evidence IN THE
>>> BIBLE and only there that the Ashara cult was eliminated in the 3rd c. BC
>>> while we know it was active even in Jerusalem in the 2nd c. AD.
>
>> Can you give chapter and verse for that Biblical evidence?
>
> There is no such thing as evidence from the bible in this matter.
> Did not find in quotes make that obvious?
So you agree that the Bible does not say what you decry it for saying.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
No: it could have been a separate camp. Compare the Anabasis, where the
Persians and Greeks had separate camps and "the market for the Greeks
was in the camp of the (Persian) barbarians.
in
>> fact, interestingly, the text uses "Israel" in the authorial voice,
>> but "hebrews" when a foreigner (Philistine, Egyptian, etc) is speaking
>> or when speaking to foreigners (Jonah, "I am a Hebrew" for example).
>> In other words, the terms seem to be used interchangeably in the text:
>> Israel for those on the inside, Hebrews to those on the outside. I
>> find no basis for your claim that the "hebrews" referred to there are
>> "children of Israel" and invite you to supply textual confirmation.
>
> Clearly the Septuagint was sorely in need of a good editor when it
> was written but one should not conjecture beyond what can be explained
> most simply by an incompetent editor.
>
--
Martin Edwards
> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dom wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> Within the past year, a program on the History Channel (?) concluded
>>> that, based on archeological evidence:
>>> 1. There was some type of social revolt in the cities of Caanan,
>>> presumably against the aristocracy.
>>> 2. The ancient Hebrews originated in the Hill Country of Caanan, when
>>> various groups of Caananite rebels merged with refugees from Egypt.
>>> I would appreciate more information.
>> Do not take cable shows on bible stuff seriously. There are no Hebrews
>> outside of Genesis. There is no evidence of any culture in Palestine as
>> described in the bible ever existing. Making up stories about revolts is bait
>> and switch.
>
> After doing a Google search, I have concluded that this program was
> reviewed at:
>
> http://www.bib-arch.org/reviews/review-bibles-buried-secrets.asp
>
> and is available at:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/
>
> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists share your
> views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh, Astarte, etc.
>
> The following is part of the review in BAR at the top link.
> ================
>
from Egypt.
Martin Edwards
I checked this out, aided by the accumulated wisdom of sixty years, and
found the usual shell game. The narrator proceeds from the (I
stipulate) fact of a people called SRL (consonants unknown) in the hill
country of Southwestern Syria to the unwarranted assumption that these
were the people who wrote the OT and they worshipped one god. There
were knights in plate armour in medieval England, and a ceremonial form
of their combat survived into the reign of Henry VIII. Some of them may
even have been called Gawain, though names of French origin would have
been more common. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not
true, or I certainly hope not.
Martin Edwards
> On Oct 2, 1:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>>>> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
>>>>> share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
>>>>> Astarte, etc.
>>>> This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
>>>> which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
>>>> of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
>>>> not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
>>> This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
>> It doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said or what I
>> was responding to. Instead, it's "Proof" of something that nobody
>> here has ever disputed: There are many who do insist on seeing
>> "Israel" even where it doesn't exist.
>
> When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist professor
> Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel", contrary to what
> young comedian JTEM' opinion is, it is"Israel", period...
>
acquired expertise.
Erland Gadde
> It is desperation to hold everything is true which is not incontrovertibly
> false. It is indicated by the "not every word" gambit. It has been known for
> enough decades that every time science learns more about something found in
> the bible it is always the believers who have to retreat. A rational person,
> unlike a believer, shitcanned all of it decades ago. Believers are always of
> the opinion that after more than a century of nothing but retreats the last
> retreat was the final one. They have never been right yet they hope against
> all hope they are right this time.
The existence of such trend doesn't prove there was no ancient Israel.
On the contrary, we have Assyrian, Aramaean and Moabite records
showing that there was an ancient Israel, at least from the 9th
century BC until the 8th, when ir was conquered by Assyria. Why have
you hitherto disregarded this evidence?
> > 2. Therefore, there was no biblical Israel.
> > 3. Therefore, there was no ancient Israel.
> > Ridiculous!
>
> That is not what I said at all. I shall correct you.
>
> 1. Nothing in the bible is true. There is only real history and archaeology
> and some happenstance connections in the bible with the majority of the
> connections argued into the bible because of religious tradition. If one
> pleads to distortion or exaggeration one has to also plead beyond all
> recognition which makes a farce of the idea they are the "same."
Or have I misunderstood you? You admit that there was a kingdom called
Israel located in what today is Palestine in at least the 9th and 8th
centuries BC, some of whose kings where named Omri, Ahab, and Jehu,
and which was ultimately conquered by Assyria, but you consider it
wrong to identify that with "Biblical" Israel?
> 2. There was no Israel because the only Israel is the biblical Israel. There
> is no such thing found in archaeology or history.
>
> 3. Ancient Israel and biblical Israel are the same thing as the bible is the
> only place where Israel is found.
>
> I know you will resist understanding such obvious things.
Well, again, it is not clear to me what your standpoint is regarding
the Assyrian, Aramaean, aand Moabite etc. records mentioning Israel.
> A believer is anyone who believes traditions whose only basis is found in
> religion. Claiming atheism while continuing to accept religious traditions
> indicates only trendy atheism. It is very popular among zionists.
Is it? Well, I don't know, because I am not a zionist. In the present
Israel-Palestine conflict, I sympathize more with the Palestinians
than with the Israelii. I support a two-state solution with a free
Palestine within the 1967 borders, in peace with Israel. The Israelii
settlers at the West Bank must move, or be expelled. This is no
perfect solution, but I see no better alternative.
Whether religious traditions should be accepted or not depends upon
their factual basis. If facts show that there is a core of truth in
some religious traditions, this must be admitted also by an atheist
like me (who have been an atheist since childhood,).
Weland
No it can't; look at the text.
Compare the Anabasis, where the
> Persians and Greeks had separate camps and "the market for the Greeks
> was in the camp of the (Persian) barbarians.
Exactly: the market for the Greeks, not the Greeks. I. E. the Persians
aren't called Greeks, the Greeks aren't called Persians. Your
illustration disproves your own point.
Weland
Prove it. Prove the Egyptologist wrong and that he/they have misread
the Stele....that means having an expertise in the language and the
script, unlike JTEM and Giwer, but please, Martin, present the evidence.
If you have no evidence to show such a misreading exists, then you
have no grounds for your claim.
Weland
Exodus 1:9, the "new king over Egypt" says that the "sons of Israel" are
more numerous than the Egyptians.
Exodus 5:2 Pharoah says that he will not let Israel go.
Just a couple examples.....
BTW, Giwer's black and white, either...or statement you're responding is
a fallacy of false dichotomy.
Matt Giwer
I did not expect your clouded mind to grasp the obvious.
> On 3 Okt, 04:21, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:>
>> It is desperation to hold everything is true which is not incontrovertibly
>> false. It is indicated by the "not every word" gambit. It has been known for
>> enough decades that every time science learns more about something found in
>> the bible it is always the believers who have to retreat. A rational person,
>> unlike a believer, shitcanned all of it decades ago. Believers are always of
>> the opinion that after more than a century of nothing but retreats the last
>> retreat was the final one. They have never been right yet they hope against
>> all hope they are right this time.
> The existence of such trend doesn't prove there was no ancient Israel.
Proof does not apply outside of math and logic and this is neither. Where
proof does apply proof of a negative is impossible except in the most trivial
cases.
You should know both those points. If you know then you should not try such a
fallacious, nonsensical assertion.
> On the contrary, we have Assyrian, Aramaean and Moabite records
> showing that there was an ancient Israel, at least from the 9th
> century BC until the 8th, when ir was conquered by Assyria. Why have
> you hitherto disregarded this evidence?
We have no such thing as you know. There is not a single mention of Israel
any place outside of the bible and wishful thinking. But if you really believe
what you say you should have no problem providing the proper citations of the
inscriptions which do in fact use the name Israel AND describe in a manner
consistent with the bible description.
Take all the screens you need to avoid responding with the necessary
citations to support your claims. QUOTE any citation here when you do.
>>> 2. Therefore, there was no biblical Israel.
>>> 3. Therefore, there was no ancient Israel.
>>> Ridiculous!
>> That is not what I said at all. I shall correct you.
>> 1. Nothing in the bible is true. There is only real history and archaeology
>> and some happenstance connections in the bible with the majority of the
>> connections argued into the bible because of religious tradition. If one
>> pleads to distortion or exaggeration one has to also plead beyond all
>> recognition which makes a farce of the idea they are the "same."
> Or have I misunderstood you? You admit that there was a kingdom called
> Israel located in what today is Palestine in at least the 9th and 8th
> centuries BC, some of whose kings where named Omri, Ahab, and Jehu,
> and which was ultimately conquered by Assyria, but you consider it
> wrong to identify that with "Biblical" Israel?
It is only permissible if you can show what it being talked about is in fact
the Israel described in the OT. It does not matter what names believers think
they have found. You claim biblical Israel? Then show me biblical Israel
without using the bible.
>> 2. There was no Israel because the only Israel is the biblical Israel. There
>> is no such thing found in archaeology or history.
>> 3. Ancient Israel and biblical Israel are the same thing as the bible is the
>> only place where Israel is found.
>> I know you will resist understanding such obvious things.
> Well, again, it is not clear to me what your standpoint is regarding
> the Assyrian, Aramaean, aand Moabite etc. records mentioning Israel.
There are none mentioning Israel. Why is that so hard to understand?
>> A believer is anyone who believes traditions whose only basis is found in
>> religion. Claiming atheism while continuing to accept religious traditions
>> indicates only trendy atheism. It is very popular among zionists.
> Is it? Well, I don't know, because I am not a zionist. In the present
> Israel-Palestine conflict, I sympathize more with the Palestinians
> than with the Israelii. I support a two-state solution with a free
> Palestine within the 1967 borders, in peace with Israel. The Israelii
> settlers at the West Bank must move, or be expelled. This is no
> perfect solution, but I see no better alternative.
> Whether religious traditions should be accepted or not depends upon
> their factual basis. If facts show that there is a core of truth in
> some religious traditions, this must be admitted also by an atheist
> like me (who have been an atheist since childhood,).
As religious traditions have no factual basis you have your answer. None are
accepted by anyone but believers.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Sat Oct 3 23:28:30 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Those who most commonly complain never provide third and fourth alternatives
because they find their use of false choices to valuable.
Which means, lets hear yours.
--
Between religion and science, only religion can retreat.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4185
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Sat Oct 3 23:48:01 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
I know what an archaeologist is. What is an Egyptologist? I know the "title"
was originally self-declared in the early 19th c. Care to show it is more than
that these days?
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Sat Oct 3 23:52:31 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On 2009-10-03, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-03, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Weland wrote:
>>>>> Dom wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 2, 12:56 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The issue here is only trying to wean believers away from the
>>>> religious traditions regarding the supposed age of the OT anthology.
>>>> Based upon what they imagine the age to be they "find" evidence IN THE
>>>> BIBLE and only there that the Ashara cult was eliminated in the 3rd c. BC
>>>> while we know it was active even in Jerusalem in the 2nd c. AD.
>>> Can you give chapter and verse for that Biblical evidence?
>> There is no such thing as evidence from the bible in this matter.
>> Did not find in quotes make that obvious?
> So you agree that the Bible does not say what you decry it for saying.
I only agree you are trying to place word games you learned in grade school.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sat Oct 3 23:55:31 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Some of them may
> even have been called Gawain, though names of French origin would have
> been more common. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not
> true, or I certainly hope not.
In another vein it would be incredibly unlikely there was not some knight
called some variant of the name Gawain. One has to ask why believers know such
name similarities could not possibly have existed just to confuse believers in
ancient times.
Giver
Guyver
Given
Gowen
Gower
Gawain [Sir Gawain and the Green Knight]
Mc's
Mac's
MacGuyver
Darin McGavin
Marge and Gower Champion
The general pattern is [Mc|Mac]G[vowel][v|w][vowel][r|n]
Gaven
Gavin
Giver
Given
Giwer
Gowar
Gowen McGowen
Gower
Guyver MacGuyver
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Sun Oct 4 01:52:11 EDT 2009
JTEM
Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. The issue under discussion is the exístence of
> ANCIENT Israel. You claim there is not (in post no
> 2 in this thread), despite evidence in Assyrian,
> Aramaean, Moabite etc, records.
What records? Be specific. What are you claiming they
say, and where can we find copies online?
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Prove it. Prove the Egyptologist wrong and that he/they
> have misread the Stele....
There isn't a single human being on the planet who claims
that it says "Israel."
Everyone -- from the very start -- acknowledges that it
doesn't say "Israel." What they claim is that it should be
INTERPRETED as "Israel."
I mean, *Duh*! The Egyptians didn't have a letter 'L' as
far as anyone knows. It would be impossible for them to
spell out "Israel."
The closest anyone comes to finding "Israel" on the stele
is "Ysrir," which they interpret as "Israel."
Why? Go on. Explain the basis for this.
Matt Giwer
...
> Is it? Well, I don't know, because I am not a zionist. In the present
> Israel-Palestine conflict, I sympathize more with the Palestinians
> than with the Israelii. I support a two-state solution with a free
> Palestine within the 1967 borders, in peace with Israel. The Israelii
> settlers at the West Bank must move, or be expelled. This is no
> perfect solution, but I see no better alternative.
Yes, you are a zionist. Your "reasonable" statement stacked in favor of the
murderous zionist thieves shows that quite clearly.
By the zionists own history they went to Palestine with the expressed purpose
of driving out the Palestinians and stealing their private property. That is
exactly what they did. No rational person can suggest it was otherwise else
the first election would have shitcanned the entire zionist enterprise. They
had do go. Anyone can see that. If they were permitted to remain on their
private property in Palestine Israel would not exist. It is called democracy.
The standard of justice for the Palestinians is exactly the same as Jews
demand for themselves from Poland, Germany, Hungary and other countries
involved in WWII. The Palestinians have an absolute right to the return of
their private property. That is the justice demand for themselves. They may
accept financial compensation but that is their choice, not their obligation.
Nuremberg justice also requires war crimes trials for everyone involved in
creating the criminal squattertowns and for the criminals who live in them and
for everyone in the IDF who has ever defended them even if they were only
following orders. That is the justice of Nuremberg for the exact same crimes.
They penalty is death by hanging for those responsible.
What happens to the poor Jews? If this were a just world they would get no
better than refugee camps as have the Palestinians. They were adults when they
went there and committed these crimes. They are responsible for their own
actions and consequences thereof. Everyone who went there after Israel was
founded knew the owners would never give them peace which means they
deliberately chose to live in constant danger.
They also knew basic human law that when there is no peaceful venue for
justice, such as the return of personal property, any and all forms of
violence are permitted against the criminals. Those who hold stolen property
are also criminals and color of law is no excuse for the crime any more than
it was in Poland. They exposed their children to it. That is their
irresponsible parenting. They should stop whining about it.
--
The boundary between the sciences and the humanities is unbreechable. Any
scientist can obtain a degree in any of the fine arts if he is interested.
The opposite is not possible.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4182
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sun Oct 4 04:20:10 EDT 2009
Erland Gadde
In my opinion, it was wrong that the Israeli state was allowed by the
UN to be established in 1948, and of course the expulsion of and
massacres of Palestinains that followed was a crime against humanity.
The Jews around the World should instaed of moving to and occupying a
country already inhabited by others, basing it upon an ancient myth
about the country being promised to them by God (Note: ancient Israel
did exist, but that doesn't mean Jews have right to the land
forever.), have fought for their rights in all the countries where
they were living. (And so, I'm not a zionist.)
But that was 60 years ago. A generation of Israelii has since grown up
in the country. They are not responsible for the actions of their
parents and grandparents 60 years ago. If children and grandchildren
of expelled Palestinians now come and expel these Israelii, we just
create a new victims of injustice and contnued hatred. I don't know
how to solve the problem with refugees wanting to return and get their
property back, perhaps financial compensation would be an alternative
(and then, the U.S. should pay most of it, being the most rigid
supporter of Israel).
On the West Bank, on the other hand, there are still quite few
Israelii settlers, and to expel them is a reasonable price to pay. In
practice, wrong gets right after sufficiently long time. The Israelii
state has existed for suffiently long time, but the Israelii West Bank
Settlements hasn't.
With your reasoning, most of the population of the U.S. should be
expelled, and the land be returned to the native Americans. That's not
realistic, and neither is it to abolish the Israelii state (at least
not in any reasonably near future). That may be regretful, but so it
is.
But perhaps I begin to understand something: perhaps you do believe
that a people would have the right to a land where their ancestors
once lived, even after milennia! Therefore, if there was an ancient
Israel, whose population was partly deported and expelled, and
replaced other people, then their descendents today, the Jews, would
have the right to go to Israel and expel all other people living
there? If you then want to support the Palestinians, then _of course_
you must deny that there was an ancient Israel, and disregard all
evidence to the contrary!
If it is so, this is an incredibly stupid way of supporting the
Palestinian cause! With friends like you, the Palestinians need no
enemies!
Trond Engen
> On 4 Okt, 10:38, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> If it is so, this is an incredibly stupid way of supporting the
> Palestinian cause! With friends like you, the Palestinians need no
> enemies!
The Giwer has no interest in the Palestinian cause or peace in the
Middle East. He's a Nazi and seemingly imagining himself as
masterminding a new justification for a world without jews.
--
Trond Engen
Erland Gadde
I already did that in an earlier post. But OK, here we go again (and I
disregard the Merneptah stele, since it is discussed in this thread):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
Moabite stele, 9th century BC. Omri, king of Israel, and his son
oppresses Moab, but king Mesha of Moab is victorious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
Aramaean stele, 9th cebtury BC. The king (of Aram) defeats and kills
the king of Israel and the king of the house of David.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith
Assyrian monolith, 9th century BC. King Shalmaneser III fights against
a coalition which includes Ahab of Israel.
Then there are some other records which don't contain the word
"Israel" but mention Omri, Jehu, Samaria, and some who deal with Judah
istead of Israel. I can look them up too, if you want.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
K, I don't have time to learn Egyptian right now.
Martin Edwards
to Israel. I once had to explain to a friend that "enema" and "emetic"
do not mean the same thing, though both have "e" as their first and
third letters.
Whiskers
[...]
> One site I looked at says that it says "Isrir", which may be a reference
> to Israel. I once had to explain to a friend that "enema" and "emetic"
> do not mean the same thing, though both have "e" as their first and
> third letters.
So when your ticket to Germany gets you to a sign that says "Willkommen
nach Deutschland" are you going to keep on going forever, or turn around
and get even more confused by the sign that says "Vous quittez
l'Allemagne"?
Could you be convinced that a car with a CH state plate comes from
Switzerland and one with E doesn't come from England?
Weland
So, retract the point then.
Matt Giwer
The greatest blood libel is blaming Jews for the atrocities of Israel.
This also includes justifying the atrocities of Israel because they are Jews.
Note the word atrocity in both statements.
--
Hodie quarto Nonas Novembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sun Oct 4 21:37:18 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Even if there were no question at all about any of these how do they add up a
kingdom ruling from the Euphrates to Egypt that had only one god and the
myriad of other religious ideas associated with biblical Israel? Remember, no
bait and switch. You promised an Israel as described in the bible and that is
what you must produce.
This is not a concession on any of those three claims as all have been
addressed here over they years and none are legitimate. The "house of david"
claim is the most obvious. BYT or BT means dwelling place as in BT LHM,
Bethlehem. It NEVER means dynasty -- except of course in this one example
where it fits the chosen beliefs of the gullible.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Oct 4 21:43:49 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
As you do not know what an egyptologist is you could at least know that an
appeal to an "authority" is a logical fallacy.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Oct 4 22:17:25 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
We are dealing your inability to demonstrate a kingdom that ruled from Egypt
to the Euphrates elsewhere.
> But that was 60 years ago. A generation of Israelii has since grown up
> in the country. They are not responsible for the actions of their
> parents and grandparents 60 years ago. If children and grandchildren
> of expelled Palestinians now come and expel these Israelii, we just
> create a new victims of injustice and contnued hatred. I don't know
> how to solve the problem with refugees wanting to return and get their
> property back, perhaps financial compensation would be an alternative
> (and then, the U.S. should pay most of it, being the most rigid
> supporter of Israel).
Those who were born in Israel can curse their parents. Anyone who moved to
Israel knew the risk of losing title to their property and knew it was stolen
from its lawful owners. No one is responsible for what happens to them because
of their own free will, adult choices. They are not victims. They are perps
whose ability to commit their crimes was terminated.
The standard of justice for Palestinians is the same standard that Jews
demand for themselves from the events of WWII. They demand the return of their
property from people who were born after the war and who are completely
innocent of any direct wrong-doing. It is also a principle of law. If you
innocently buy stolen property, you do not get to keep it.
The cascading damages following from crime is just one more reason why crimes
are to be eliminated. They are the reason there cannot be an exception to
justice. It is the same for the victims of the Nakbah as it is for those of
the Shoah. Both words mean the same thing, disaster.
> On the West Bank, on the other hand, there are still quite few
> Israelii settlers, and to expel them is a reasonable price to pay. In
> practice, wrong gets right after sufficiently long time. The Israelii
> state has existed for suffiently long time, but the Israelii West Bank
> Settlements hasn't.
For Israel it is 60 years and the squatter towns it is 40 years. What is the
number of years between 40 and 60 years where the thief can keep what he has
stolen?
It is the same for Jerusalem. It is also 40 years. That must be returned,
period, no exceptions.
> With your reasoning, most of the population of the U.S. should be
> expelled, and the land be returned to the native Americans. That's not
> realistic, and neither is it to abolish the Israelii state (at least
> not in any reasonably near future). That may be regretful, but so it
> is.
There is a major difference. The US has peace treaties with the Indians who
ceded the land. Israel has no such treaties with the Palestinians. Also in
the US, save for a few rare cases, the Amerinds go to court for enforcement of
these treaties not have overturn them.
The situations are not comparable in the matter of land title. In that matter
of demise of the Amerind being considered genocide they are comparable.
> But perhaps I begin to understand something: perhaps you do believe
> that a people would have the right to a land where their ancestors
> once lived, even after milennia! Therefore, if there was an ancient
> Israel, whose population was partly deported and expelled, and
> replaced other people, then their descendents today, the Jews, would
> have the right to go to Israel and expel all other people living
> there? If you then want to support the Palestinians, then _of course_
> you must deny that there was an ancient Israel, and disregard all
> evidence to the contrary!
> If it is so, this is an incredibly stupid way of supporting the
> Palestinian cause! With friends like you, the Palestinians need no
> enemies!
Of course that is not what I am saying. I am not talking about any abstract
idea of ancestral ownership. I am talking about deeded, titled property as
valid as the deed to any home and real property in the world. The owners and
their inheritors are still very much alive and still retain lawful ownership
of the property in question.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Sun Oct 4 23:38:00 EDT 2009
Erland Gadde
> Erland Gadde wrote:
> > I already did that in an earlier post. But OK, here we go again (and I
> > disregard the Merneptah stele, since it is discussed in this thread):
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
> > Moabite stele, 9th century BC. Omri, king of Israel, and his son
> > oppresses Moab, but king Mesha of Moab is victorious.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
> > Aramaean stele, 9th cebtury BC. The king (of Aram) defeats and kills
> > the king of Israel and the king of the house of David.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith
> > Assyrian monolith, 9th century BC. King Shalmaneser III fights against
> > a coalition which includes Ahab of Israel.
> > Then there are some other records which don't contain the word
> > "Israel" but mention Omri, Jehu, Samaria, and some who deal with Judah
> > istead of Israel. I can look them up too, if you want.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk
>
> Even if there were no question at all about any of these how do they add up a
> kingdom ruling from the Euphrates to Egypt
They don't, and I never claimed they did.
> that had only one god and the
> myriad of other religious ideas associated with biblical Israel?
> Remember, no
> bait and switch. You promised an Israel as described in the bible and that is
> what you must produce.
Where did I make this promise?
I said (or suggested) that the history of Israel is described in the
Bible "in heavily distorted form".
> This is not a concession on any of those three claims as all have been
> addressed here over they years and none are legitimate. The "house of david"
> claim is the most obvious. BYT or BT means dwelling place as in BT LHM,
> Bethlehem. It NEVER means dynasty -- except of course in this one example
> where it fits the chosen beliefs of the gullible.
Whether this is true or not, all three of these records mention
Israel.
I think Finkelstein and Silberman are right in claiming that David and
Solomon were only small, local, tribal chiefs, and that a real
Israelite state didn't arise before the 9th century BC, during Omri's
reign.
Erland Gadde
> Erland Gadde wrote:
> > On the West Bank, on the other hand, there are still quite few
> > Israelii settlers, and to expel them is a reasonable price to pay. In
> > practice, wrong gets right after sufficiently long time. The Israelii
> > state has existed for suffiently long time, but the Israelii West Bank
> > Settlements hasn't.
>
> For Israel it is 60 years and the squatter towns it is 40 years. What is the
> number of years between 40 and 60 years where the thief can keep what he has
> stolen?
Most of the Israelii West Bank settlements have existed much less than
40 years. For those few settlers who have lived there 40 years (or
nearly), their right to live there must be sacrificed for the greater
good, in my opinion.
Italo
Erland Gadde <erlan...@gmail.com> schreef:
> On 4 Okt, 10:38, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In my opinion, it was wrong that the Israeli state was allowed by the
> UN to be established in 1948, and of course the expulsion of and
> massacres of Palestinains that followed was a crime against humanity.
It is an ongoing crime against humanity. Not something from a distant
past.
> The Jews around the World should instaed of moving to and occupying a
> country already inhabited by others, basing it upon an ancient myth
> about the country being promised to them by God (Note: ancient Israel
> did exist, but that doesn't mean Jews have right to the land
> forever.),
But they always remained to live there. Who you think the Palestinians
are?
> have fought for their rights in all the countries where
> they were living. (And so, I'm not a zionist.)
>
> But that was 60 years ago. A generation of Israelii has since grown up
> in the country. They are not responsible for the actions of their
> parents and grandparents 60 years ago.
So if someone keeps a slave on a chain for 59 years, then in the 60th
year the slave looses all his rights?
> If children and grandchildren
> of expelled Palestinians now come and expel these Israelii, we just
> create a new victims of injustice and contnued hatred.
No. Hamas (democratic elected) has already stated that the Jews may
remain to live in a free Palestine, as Palestinian Jews. If you don't
believe it then that is your prejudice.
> I don't know
> how to solve the problem with refugees wanting to return and get their
> property back, perhaps financial compensation would be an alternative
> (and then, the U.S. should pay most of it, being the most rigid
> supporter of Israel).
> On the West Bank, on the other hand, there are still quite few
> Israelii settlers, and to expel them is a reasonable price to pay. In
> practice, wrong gets right after sufficiently long time.
In this case wrong gets right just because americans want to be it
this way.
> With your reasoning, most of the population of the U.S. should be
> expelled, and the land be returned to the native Americans.
Native Americans have been decimated time after time again, they
have not reached the same level yet with the native Palestinians.
> That's not
> realistic, and neither is it to abolish the Israelii state (at least
> not in any reasonably near future). That may be regretful, but so it
> is.
Not if the international community suddenly decided to stop licking the
american boot.
> But perhaps I begin to understand something: perhaps you do believe
> that a people would have the right to a land where their ancestors
> once lived, even after milennia! Therefore, if there was an ancient
> Israel, whose population was partly deported and expelled, and
> replaced other people, then their descendents today, the Jews,
So what is the evidence that the ancestors of 'the Jews' came from
ancient Israel? AFAIK there are only marginal genetic connections to
the autochthon Palestinians.
In the hellenistic era Jewish religion was spread over north Africa
and all of the hellenistic countries. By the first century most
adherents of the Jewish faith did not live in Palestine, nor did their
immediate ancestors..
e.g. Philo:
"Jews who inhabited Alexandria and the rest of the country from the
Catabathmos on the side of Libya to the boundaries of Ethiopia were
not less than a million of men"
"all the districts of Egypt, and would extend from that country to the
east and to the oriental nations, and from the borders of the land in
the other direction, and from the Mareotic district which is the
frontier of Libya, towards the setting of the sun and the western
nations. For no one country can contain the whole Jewish nation, by
reason of its populousness; (46) on which account they frequent all
the most prosperous and fertile countries of Europe and Asia, whether
islands or continents, looking indeed upon the holy city as their
metropolis in which is erected the sacred temple of the most high God,
but accounting those regions which have been occupied by their
fathers, and grandfathers, and great grandfathers, and still more
remote ancestors, in which they have been born and brought up, as
their country; and there are even some regions to which they came the
very moment that they were originally settled, sending a colony of
their people to do a pleasure to the founders of the colony."
> would
> have the right to go to Israel and expel all other people living
> there? If you then want to support the Palestinians, then _of course_
> you must deny that there was an ancient Israel, and disregard all
> evidence to the contrary!
> If it is so, this is an incredibly stupid way of supporting the
> Palestinian cause! With friends like you, the Palestinians need no
> enemies!
--
Boycott American products
Whiskers
> Erland Gadde wrote:
>> On 4 Okt, 09:02, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Erland Gadde <erlandga...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Even if there were no question at all about any of these how do
> they add up a kingdom ruling from the Euphrates to Egypt that had only
> one god and the myriad of other religious ideas associated with biblical
> Israel? Remember, no bait and switch. You promised an Israel as described
> in the bible and that is what you must produce.
[...]
Where in the Bible is Israel described as "ruling from the Euphrates to
Egypt"? I thought the largest extent claimed was "from Dan to Beersheba"
- or about 150 miles from Lebanon to the Negev desert.
Martin Edwards
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-10-04, Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> One site I looked at says that it says "Isrir", which may be a reference
>>> to Israel. I once had to explain to a friend that "enema" and "emetic"
>>> do not mean the same thing, though both have "e" as their first and
>>> third letters.
>>
>> So when your ticket to Germany gets you to a sign that says "Willkommen
>> nach Deutschland" are you going to keep on going forever, or turn around
>> and get even more confused by the sign that says "Vous quittez
>> l'Allemagne"?
>>
>> Could you be convinced that a car with a CH state plate comes from
>> Switzerland and one with E doesn't come from England?
>>
> As fuguing that isn't bad, but what is your point?
Pretty obvious, surely? Different people have different names for the
same country or community or tribe or nation etc.
Matt Giwer
Therefore believers can declare any name means any country they _*believe*_
it should mean.
Why is it so difficult to admit the only way to match a name to a thing is if
the descriptions match? Because none of the descriptions match biblical Israel.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Mon Oct 5 15:36:51 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
They have no right to live in occupied territory. That was emphatically
prohibited when people were hanged at Nuremberg for the same crime.
And for all the rest it is only 60 years. It is not a matter of any greater
good. It is a matter of justice and ownership of real property stolen under
color of law even from the Palestinians they could not expel and who are
citizens of Israel.
Thieves have no rights. Murderers have only the right to die.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Mon Oct 5 18:08:17 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On 5 Okt, 04:08, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Erland Gadde wrote:
>
>>> I already did that in an earlier post. But OK, here we go again (and I
>>> disregard the Merneptah stele, since it is discussed in this thread):
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele
>>> Moabite stele, 9th century BC. Omri, king of Israel, and his son
>>> oppresses Moab, but king Mesha of Moab is victorious.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
>>> Aramaean stele, 9th cebtury BC. The king (of Aram) defeats and kills
>>> the king of Israel and the king of the house of David.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith
>>> Assyrian monolith, 9th century BC. King Shalmaneser III fights against
>>> a coalition which includes Ahab of Israel.
>>> Then there are some other records which don't contain the word
>>> "Israel" but mention Omri, Jehu, Samaria, and some who deal with Judah
>>> istead of Israel. I can look them up too, if you want.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk
>> Even if there were no question at all about any of these how do they add up a
>> kingdom ruling from the Euphrates to Egypt
>
> They don't, and I never claimed they did.
Then you agree there was never any biblical Israel. Why do you keep posting
when we are in agreement?
>> that had only one god and the
>> myriad of other religious ideas associated with biblical Israel?
>> Remember, no
>> bait and switch. You promised an Israel as described in the bible and that is
>> what you must produce.
> Where did I make this promise?
It is a reasonable expectation from your continued posting.
> I said (or suggested) that the history of Israel is described in the
> Bible "in heavily distorted form".
Then there was no biblical Israel.
>> This is not a concession on any of those three claims as all have been
>> addressed here over they years and none are legitimate. The "house of david"
>> claim is the most obvious. BYT or BT means dwelling place as in BT LHM,
>> Bethlehem. It NEVER means dynasty -- except of course in this one example
>> where it fits the chosen beliefs of the gullible.
> Whether this is true or not, all three of these records mention
> Israel.
They do not mention biblical Israel therefore they do not apply to a
discussion of biblical Israel.
> I think Finkelstein and Silberman are right in claiming that David and
> Solomon were only small, local, tribal chiefs, and that a real
> Israelite state didn't arise before the 9th century BC, during Omri's
> reign.
You can choose to buy into any retreat your faith requires. However there is
no evidence of any biblical Israel ever existing at any time so there is no
point in trying to substitute something else for the real thing.
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Mon Oct 5 18:13:18 EDT 2009
Erland Gadde
> Then you agree there was never any biblical Israel. Why do you keep posting
> when we are in agreement?
We seem to disagree of whether there was an ANCIENT Israel. You insist
that anciest Israel = biblical Israel and that no biblical Israel
existed. But to me, it seems meaningless to squabble over "biblical
Israel" (how much of the Bible must be correct? 100%? 80%?, 50%?,
20%?) so I will refrain from using that concept, But I maintain that
there was an ancient Isarel, i.e. an ancient kingdom called Israel in
the 9th and 8th centuries BC. If you use other definitions, so be it,
I don't care.
Matt Giwer
> On 6 Okt, 00:19, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Then you agree there was never any biblical Israel. Why do you keep posting
>> when we are in agreement?
> We seem to disagree of whether there was an ANCIENT Israel. You insist
> that anciest Israel = biblical Israel and that no biblical Israel
> existed.
You are wrong. There is exactly one and only Israel described in the world
and that is in the fiction collection called the OT. There is no other source
for the idea it ever existed. Therefore the same rules apply to "finding" it
as have applied to "finding" Troy since Schliemann. You have to do a lot more
than find something in the same general area.
Right now "finding" Troy consists of showing the city at the right depth/age
does in fact match the description in the Iliad. The exact same requirement
applies to finding biblical Israel.
In both cases the find must match the description.
There are no special exceptions for bible beliefs. All must pass the same
criteria.
> But to me, it seems meaningless to squabble over "biblical
> Israel" (how much of the Bible must be correct? 100%? 80%?, 50%?,
> 20%?)
100% of course within the limits of error and misunderstanding and
mistranslation of course. That is the criteria that applies to Troy.
> so I will refrain from using that concept, But I maintain that
> there was an ancient Isarel, i.e. an ancient kingdom called Israel in
> the 9th and 8th centuries BC. If you use other definitions, so be it,
> I don't care.
The standard has been set. That standard is Troy. There are no exceptions for
religious traditions.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Wed Oct 7 01:49:47 EDT 2009
igor
> igor wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 1:40 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
> >>>>> share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
> >>>>> Astarte, etc.
> >>>> This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
> >>>> which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
> >>>> of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
> >>>> not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
> >>> This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
> >> It doesn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said or what I
> >> was responding to. Instead, it's "Proof" of something that nobody
> >> here has ever disputed: There are many who do insist on seeing
> >> "Israel" even where it doesn't exist.
> > When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist professor
> > Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel", contrary to what
> > young comedian JTEM' opinion is, it is"Israel", period...
>
> does he teach? What are his degrees?
If you really wanted to know, all you had to do is google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Redford
>
> The problem is it is trivial to find believers with all the degrees and
> credentials needed who still say things to the media they could never get
> published outside of a magazine. You know that.
>
> >> By the way: The episode was made while Bush was President,
> >> a Reich Wing extremists was the head of PBS and the extremist
> >> had a reputation for FORCING Reich Wing (and that includes
> >> conservative religious) views.
>
> >>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
>
> >> You're welcome.
>
> > Are you claiming that all of the featured historians are involved in
> > some kind of conspiracy with extremists??? What is your evidence,
> > professor JTEM? Hilarious...
>
> Google Elad+Jerusalem and see how well funded they are -- even to the point
> of tax fraud in the US.
>
Oh. So you know about google!!!
> --
> What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
> god that is of stone?
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
> http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtmla16
> Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
> Fri Oct 2 22:36:50 EDT 2009
igor
> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When someone with such credentials as published Egyptologist
> > professor Redford points at Merneptah Stele and says "Israel",
>
> know for a fact that it doesn't say "Israel" (it's INTERPRETED as
> a reference to "Israel"), and even though you know for a fact that
> plenty of people with impressive credentials dispute the "Israel"
> interpretation.
Who are those people with impressive credentials?
>
> You can't be unbiased even as you choose to avoid everyone &
> everything that contradicts you.
>
I am unbiased, but I am not blind nor stupid... and I dont think that
Giwer has any credentials.
> > Are you claiming
>
> I am not making any claims. It is a fact that PBS was under the
> control of a Reich-wing conservative who was rather open with
> his intentions of injecting a conservative Reich-wing bias into
> PBS programs, and it is a fact that there are plenty of people who
> argue against the "Israel" interpretation.
>
This program has several distinguished historians stating their views
on camera to the whole world, would they do that to please some PBS
executive??? Most likely not, unless you can provide evidence to the
contrary, and so far I have not seen you providing any evidence to any
claim you made here.
> YOU, on the other hand, are strongly implying that it would
> require some sort of international conspiracy in order for these
> facts to be true. As YOU are making the claim, feel free to
> support it.
Dude, what are you talking about????
igor
> igor wrote:
> >> Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> >>> When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
> >>> share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
> >>> Astarte, etc.
> >> This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
> >> which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
> >> of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
> >> not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
>
> > This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
>
> found the usual shell game. The narrator proceeds from the (I
> stipulate) fact of a people called SRL (consonants unknown) in the hill
> country of Southwestern Syria to the unwarranted assumption that these
> were the people who wrote the OT and they worshipped one god. There
> were knights in plate armour in medieval England, and a ceremonial form
> of their combat survived into the reign of Henry VIII. Some of them may
> even have been called Gawain, though names of French origin would have
> been more common. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not
> true, or I certainly hope not.
>
> --
> As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
> Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
>
> Woody Guthrie
Unwarranted??? Take your medicine...
Matt Giwer
I was asking you. Did you even think to care before I asked?
>> The problem is it is trivial to find believers with all the degrees and
>> credentials needed who still say things to the media they could never get
>> published outside of a magazine. You know that.
>>
>>>> By the way: The episode was made while Bush was President,
>>>> a Reich Wing extremists was the head of PBS and the extremist
>>>> had a reputation for FORCING Reich Wing (and that includes
>>>> conservative religious) views.
>>>> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
>>>> You're welcome.
>>> Are you claiming that all of the featured historians are involved in
>>> some kind of conspiracy with extremists??? What is your evidence,
>>> professor JTEM? Hilarious...
>> Google Elad+Jerusalem and see how well funded they are -- even to the point
>> of tax fraud in the US.
> Oh. So you know about google!!!
And about the archaeological fraud going on in Israel.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Wed Oct 7 23:54:55 EDT 2009
Weland
> On Oct 3, 6:12 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>igor wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 2, 7:24 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>When I saw this program, I noticed that some archeologists
>>>>>share your views about evidence of polytheism, Yahweh,
>>>>>Astarte, etc.
>>>>
>>>>This is strange. No archaeologists disputes the "Evidence,"
>>>>which is to say the archaeology.They pull goddess figures out
>>>>of the ground. Period. Every "Archaeologists" knows this, and
>>>>not a single one has any basis for a dispute,
>>
>>>This should answer some of your questions, young JTEM:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg2EZAEw5c&feature=PlayList&p=1E124EE...
>>
>>I checked this out, aided by the accumulated wisdom of sixty years, and
>>found the usual shell game. The narrator proceeds from the (I
>>stipulate) fact of a people called SRL (consonants unknown) in the hill
>>country of Southwestern Syria to the unwarranted assumption that these
>>were the people who wrote the OT and they worshipped one god. There
>>were knights in plate armour in medieval England, and a ceremonial form
>>of their combat survived into the reign of Henry VIII. Some of them may
>>even have been called Gawain, though names of French origin would have
>>been more common. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not
>>true, or I certainly hope not.
False analogy again there Martin. A real analogy would be to start with
the story and wonder who the story tellers are and what the story tells
us about them, and that happens to be quite a lot. As a result, there
are many "true" things in the story, regardless of whether the story
itself is historical (and it isn't of course).
So why is it you think they are starting from an assumption? Do they
have to go through and prove what is known every time they sit down to
make an informative vid? Demonstrate that its assumption and that there
were no such people.
Matt Giwer
...
> False analogy again there Martin. A real analogy would be to start with
> the story and wonder who the story tellers are and what the story tells
> us about them, and that happens to be quite a lot. As a result, there
> are many "true" things in the story, regardless of whether the story
> itself is historical (and it isn't of course).
Start with the story. It is entertaining. What does it tell us about the
creators? They wrote stories to entertain people. That is quite a lot. Just as
today people like stories with magical, mystical components they included such
features in their stories.
> So why is it you think they are starting from an assumption? Do they
> have to go through and prove what is known every time they sit down to
> make an informative vid? Demonstrate that its assumption and that there
> were no such people.
I have stated all that is known about the stories and the people who created
the stories. Why would anyone take religious tradition seriously and think
there is more to the stories than entertainment?
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Oct 8 02:05:07 EDT 2009
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 10:35 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that you're stopping there, even though
> > you already know for a fact that it doesn't say "Israel"
> > (it's INTERPRETED as a reference to "Israel"), and
> > even though you know for a fact that plenty of people
> > with impressive credentials dispute the "Israel"
> > interpretation.
>
> Who are those people with impressive credentials?
Let's see, you named one so I'll name one: A. Nibbi.
I believe it's Alessandra Nibbi.
> > You can't be unbiased even as you choose to avoid everyone &
> > everything that contradicts you.
>
> I am unbiased,
Ah, there is none so blind as those who will not see...
> but I am not blind nor stupid...
And yet you don't even know that the letter 'L' appears nowhere
on the stele? Or, that there is absolutely/positively no reason to
even entertain the INTERPRETATION of "Israel" __Unless__
you first assume that this Israel existed?
It's called "Circular reasoning."
"I know Israel existed, so this stele has to be mentioning Israel,
so because it mentions Israel it proves Israel existed."
> > I am not making any claims. It is a fact that PBS was
> > under the control of a Reich-wing conservative who was
> > rather open with his intentions of injecting a conservative
> > Reich-wing bias into PBS programs, and it is a fact that
> > there are plenty of people who argue against the "Israel"
> > interpretation.
>
> This program has several distinguished historians
So?
Maybe I'm the first to point this out to you, but we live in a
society that was heavily shaped by the bible. So much so,
in fact, that all of the west took it's identity from it's bible
based religions for centuries.... "Christendom."
The true measure of an "Historian" is not what he produces
within his own cultural context, but his ability to step
outside of himself, his culture and his biases. This is so far
beyond you that I'm wasting my time, I know, but I'll even
share with you one of the means for identifying the biased
nuts from good historians: They recognize the issues and
explain things.
A decent historian would NEVER say "This stele says Israel."
They'd explain how they arrived at their interpretation.
> Dude, what are you talking about????
oh me oh my it is so unlike you to be unable to follow even
your half of a conversation yes it is oh my it is indeed yes.
Well, not *Really*.
Martin Edwards
Fuck off
Martin Edwards
There is no such thing as a negative proof. Demonstrate that there
were, not that lots of people think there were.
Martin Edwards
> Weland wrote:
> ...
>> False analogy again there Martin. A real analogy would be to start
>> with the story and wonder who the story tellers are and what the story
>> tells us about them, and that happens to be quite a lot. As a result,
>> there are many "true" things in the story, regardless of whether the
>> story itself is historical (and it isn't of course).
>
> Start with the story. It is entertaining. What does it tell us about
> the creators? They wrote stories to entertain people. That is quite a
> lot. Just as today people like stories with magical, mystical components
> they included such features in their stories.
>
>> So why is it you think they are starting from an assumption? Do they
>> have to go through and prove what is known every time they sit down to
>> make an informative vid? Demonstrate that its assumption and that
>> there were no such people.
>
> I have stated all that is known about the stories and the people who
> created the stories. Why would anyone take religious tradition seriously
> and think there is more to the stories than entertainment?
>
to be seeing a /revenant/. This was resolved when it turned out that he
really was going bonkers and the lady really was an hallucination. He
begins series six in a nuthouse. Perhaps Archbishop Williams will be
diagnosed soon.
Matt Giwer
The thing about House this season is Weland can't pretend not to read my
doing exactly what he said.
What he meant was to view the story in terms of its modern day religious
significance to Christians.
It takes very little research to find in ancient times the spoken word was
superior in all cases and in all matters to the written word. He expects just
the opposite for bible stories in those days.
--
The West Bank continues to demonstrate Israel is a third world country which
is unable to enforce its own laws on its own citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4175
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Oct 9 00:06:56 EDT 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> It takes very little research to find in ancient times
> the spoken word was superior in all cases and in all
> matters to the written word.
This is pure bullshit. In Egypt, for example, the written word
was itself magic. You had your name carved on a statue and
the statue became you -- a surrogate body your Ka could
enter even if the real body had been destroyed.
Heck, even the name "Hieroglyphs" means "Sacred writings."
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> It takes very little research to find in ancient times
>> the spoken word was superior in all cases and in all
>> matters to the written word.
> This is pure bullshit. In Egypt, for example, the written word
> was itself magic.
As with all word magic they have to be read to have effect.
> You had your name carved on a statue and
> the statue became you -- a surrogate body your Ka could
> enter even if the real body had been destroyed.
What does a part of a ritual have to do with do with this?
> Heck, even the name "Hieroglyphs" means "Sacred writings."
And of course the Egyptians called them by the name hieroglyph, right? What
did the Egyptians mean by petroglyph?
Beyond that the thread here is the nature of the stories in the Septuagint.
The invite was to view them as they are. I did. Entertainment. That
entertainment is not taken seriously is quite obvious.
That the spoken word is taken as more important than the written word is
hardly a dead idea. Why are speeches given? Why are papers read at
conferences? Why not bypass the entire speaking entirely and distribute the
written material instead? Certainly a lot cheaper and more convenient.
--
What is the point of worshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Oct 9 02:01:09 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
as inventories. We do not know if they had poetry, and the precise age
of the stories finally written down by Homer is not known.