Expert Witness

[Joe Bruno]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.

In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.

[WeHang FagZ And Jews Too]

For Jews digging out in the Holy Land to find evidence of David, this might mean anything at all but not for the Arabs who already have the dome of the Rock, a visible proof that JESUS is the MESSIAH, the SOVEREIGN RULER. and Muhammad being His Apostle to the Ismaelites.

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7a3f05b4-d8ee-4ff3...@googlegroups.com:

Nope.

Expert opinion is not admissible unless it conforms
to the "general acceptance" standard under the Frye and
Kelly cases.

"Under the general acceptance test, evidence of a new
scientific technique or methodology was inadmissible
until the proponent established that the methodology,
technique, or device had “general acceptance” in the
relevant field. Id.

http://apps.calbar.ca.gov/mcleselfstudy/mcle_home.aspx?testID=69


Since Dover's is a lone opinion contradicted by the
great weight of others in this field what he says is
inadmissable.

If you hadn't bailed out of law school you would
know that...........

[John Locke]

...and his opinion about the existence of Moses is:

"The overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous
origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a
40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure
may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th
century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions
concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to
confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that
he was the founder of later Israelite region."

[Christopher A. Lee]

Expert testimony can also be cross-examined to determine how
mainstream it is, that the person really _is_ an expert, etc.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Don't expect Mad Joe to address this or any of the other evidence
against - he'll just keep repeating what has already been rebutted and
even debunked.

[Joe Bruno]

And, just in case you don't accept wikipedia's explanation of the "Expert Witness"
concept, here it is in the Federal Rules of Evidence:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

[nature bats last]

And in many a trial we are treated to the spectacle of dueling expert witnesses.

Are you equally open to "expert witnesses" who contest Dever's views?


Seth

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:

Which makes your constant use of an out of date quote by him the more dishonest.
He would not give evidence that Moses was real, or that the Exodus as described in the bible ever happened, especially since I have posted his current views on all this several times in response to attempts to make it seem like he still believes that Moses was a real person or that he still believes that the Exodus might have happened with far fewer people.

Here again is his current viewpoint
From Wikipedia
William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus;[6]
“”The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.

Dever writes that the central proposition of his book is very simple. "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'" He writes of archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that he believes that the biblical Moses never existed. He is talking about what can be gathered from archaeological evidence.

This next is from a book review of Dever's book "What Did the Bible Writers Know and When did They Know It."

About the historical Moses he writes:

…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.

About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."

This next is from a book review of Dever's book "What Did the Bible Writers Know and When did They Know It."

So if you need an expert witness on how Moses was not real and the Exodus never happened or how Abraham and his sons never existed, he's your guy.

…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.

[Cloud Hobbit]

What a lovely fable. That's all it is, a fable, fiction, not real, it never happened. There was no messiah, and even if there was why the fuck would he want to hang out with a psychopath like Mohamed? Maybe he reminded Him of dad who liked to wipe out the population of an entire planet when he got pissy.
And since Mohamed was a pedophile and since god approved of pedophilia, maybe it's not that hard to see why Jesus and Mohamed might get along.

[Joe Bruno]

My purpose in this thread is to explain the legal concept of "Expert Witness".
I can tell from posts of others that most of you do not understand what it means. I'm not here to engage in a battle of opinions on the exodus controversy.

[Tim]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:

Wrong, that is a logical fallacy. It's called ...... . Quiz time for bruno. What logical fallacy did you just commit?

[Tim]

It's not an issue of law, dumb ass. The legal system has no bearing on what constitutes real history.

[Joe Bruno]

ROTFL! Jesus died in 33 AD. Mohammed was not born until the seventh century AD.
What a babbling jackass you are. Mohammed spent most of his life in the area we now call Saudi Arabia, a place Jesus never visited.

[nature bats last]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:31:51 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 12:41:41 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> > > >
> > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> > > >
> > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> > >
> > > And, just in case you don't accept wikipedia's explanation of the "Expert Witness"
> > > concept, here it is in the Federal Rules of Evidence:
> > >
> > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
> >

.> > And in many a trial we are treated to the spectacle of dueling expert witnesses.
> >
.> > Are you equally open to "expert witnesses" who contest Dever's views?

.> My purpose in this thread is to explain the legal concept of "Expert Witness".

.> I can tell from posts of others that most of you do not understand what it means.

Really? I didn't get that at all.

.> I'm not here to engage in a battle of opinions on the exodus controversy.

And yet that's precisely the context you presented it in.


Seth

[Joe Bruno]

People can believe anything they choose and you have no influence on the matter.

[nature bats last]

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 6:33:23 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 1:03:12 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:33:38 AM UTC-7, WeHang FagZ And Jews Too wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> > > >
> > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> > > >
> > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For Jews digging out in the Holy Land to find evidence of David, this might mean anything at all but not for the Arabs who already have the dome of the Rock, a visible proof that JESUS is the MESSIAH, the SOVEREIGN RULER. and Muhammad being His Apostle to the Ismaelites.
> >

.> > What a lovely fable. That's all it is, a fable, fiction, not real, it never happened. There was no messiah, and even if there was why the fuck would he want to hang out with a psychopath like Mohamed? Maybe he reminded Him of dad who liked to wipe out the population of an entire planet when he got pissy.
.> > And since Mohamed was a pedophile and since god approved of pedophilia, maybe it's not that hard to see why Jesus and Mohamed might get along.
>
.> People can believe anything they choose and you have no influence on the matter.

Do you?


Seth

[Joe Bruno]

ROTFL!!!!
The legal system creates the rules by which evidence is used to determine truth.
You can't read.

[Joe Bruno]

Why don't you enlighten us, fool?

[Don Martin]

Candy-Arsed Tandy _always_ protests his utter innocense on any nasty
topic he posts.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Tim]

It does so for legal issues, not for history, science or anything else, dumb ass.

> You can't read.

Oh, so how did I point out your error then, dumb ass?

[Tim]

You failed. The fallacy is called an appeal to authority, idiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 14:14:50 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:45:30 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:40:15 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
>> > > >
>> > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
>> > > >
>> > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
>> > >
>> > > And, just in case you don't accept wikipedia's explanation of the "Expert Witness"
>> > > concept, here it is in the Federal Rules of Evidence:
>> > >
>> > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
>> >
>> > It's not an issue of law, dumb ass. The legal system has no
>> > bearing on what constitutes real history.

Obviously.

>> ROTFL!!!!
>> The legal system creates the rules by which evidence is used
>> to determine truth.

If it is deemed admissable.

>It does so for legal issues, not for history, science or anything
>else, dumb ass.
>
>> You can't read.
>
>Oh, so how did I point out your error then, dumb ass?

Besides which. expert witnesses also get cross-examined - and in the
unlikely event of one saying that a mention a thousand or more years
after a claimed event was evidence for it, he would have to justify
his opinion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 14:16:37 -0700 (PDT), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
>> > >
>> > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an
>> > > expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
>> > >
>> > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.

It would still be subject to cross-examination to determine the
reasons for that opinion and its admissability into evidence.

All of which is a red herring.

Because "but this expert thinks it actually happened without saying
why" is hardly a satisfactory response to articles explaining why
archaeologists conclude it didn't happen, and posts pointing out all
the logistical and other problems.

All these have to be addressed.

>> > Wrong, that is a logical fallacy. It's called ...... . Quiz time for
>> > bruno. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
>>
>> Why don't you enlighten us, fool?
>
>You failed. The fallacy is called an appeal to authority, idiot.

Authorities still have to give reasons, which would be subject to
cross-examination in court.

[Joe Bruno]

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-7, Don Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:19:13 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:31:51 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 12:41:41 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:06:46 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> >> > >
> >> > > And, just in case you don't accept wikipedia's explanation of the "Expert Witness"
> >> > > concept, here it is in the Federal Rules of Evidence:
> >> > >
> >> > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
> >> >
> >
> >.> > And in many a trial we are treated to the spectacle of dueling expert witnesses.
> >> >
> >.> > Are you equally open to "expert witnesses" who contest Dever's views?
> >
> >.> My purpose in this thread is to explain the legal concept of "Expert Witness".
> >.> I can tell from posts of others that most of you do not understand what it means.
> >
> >Really? I didn't get that at all.
> >
> >.> I'm not here to engage in a battle of opinions on the exodus controversy.
> >
> >And yet that's precisely the context you presented it in.
>
> Candy-Arsed Tandy _always_ protests his utter innocense on any nasty
> topic he posts.
>
> --

Show us the post where I did that.

[Joe Bruno]

ROTFL! Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence. I have posted them 7 times before.
See Articles VI and VII.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Now we have proof you can't read.

[Tim]

No, we have proof that you are an idiot.

Name a legal case where the US court system decided what constitutes actual history, dumb ass.

[Joe Bruno]

PS: Each state has it's own code of evidence, but most of them are very similar
to the FRE, especially in the sections dealing with witnesses and expert testimony. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the FRE to be the law of the land in the United States.

[Tim]

So you think that history then changes from state to state? You're an idiot. Let me repeat: FRE have nothing to do with what constitutes actual history. Mr. Dever's expert opinion has nothing to do with actual history until such time as it is backed up with historical evidence. The US judicial system is not tasked with deciding if Mr. Dever's opinion is factual. What part don't you get, dumb ass?

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:37:07 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 11:36:24 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong, that is a logical fallacy. It's called ...... . Quiz time for bruno. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you enlighten us, fool?
> > > >
> > > > You failed. The fallacy is called an appeal to authority, idiot.
> > >
> > > ROTFL! Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence. I have posted them 7 times before.
> > > See Articles VI and VII.
> > >
> > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
> > >
> > > Now we have proof you can't read.
> >
> > PS: Each state has it's own code of evidence, but most of them are very similar
> > to the FRE, especially in the sections dealing with witnesses and expert testimony. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the FRE to be the law of the land in the United States.
>
> So you think that history then changes from state to state?

I said nothing about history, you fucking illiterate dimwit.
The subject under discussion is the method by which courts of our legal system designate and qualify certain people as expert witnesses.
That is done by a judge who is an expert on the subject of evidence.
It is never done by loud mouth fools like you who cannot read.

You are not qualified to decide who will be designated as an expert witness.
The fact that you make the silly attempt proves your ignorance, arrogance and
complete dishonesty.
Neither I nor anyone else interested in serious legal matters gives a flying fuck what you think about history or Dever or his opinion.
He is a qualified expert in his field through years of experience and education.

You have no education or useful experience in anything and nobody with any common sense gives a shit what you think.

[nature bats last]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:35:23 AM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:37:07 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 11:36:24 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong, that is a logical fallacy. It's called ...... . Quiz time for bruno. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you enlighten us, fool?
> > > > >
> > > > > You failed. The fallacy is called an appeal to authority, idiot.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFL! Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence. I have posted them 7 times before.
> > > > See Articles VI and VII.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
> > > >
> > > > Now we have proof you can't read.
> > >
> > > PS: Each state has it's own code of evidence, but most of them are very similar
> > > to the FRE, especially in the sections dealing with witnesses and expert testimony. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the FRE to be the law of the land in the United States.
> >

.> > So you think that history then changes from state to state?
>
.> I said nothing about history, you fucking illiterate dimwit.

Well, other than starting out this thread with:

.> "Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an
.> expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East",

not a thing.

Seth

[Christopher A. Lee]

Which is a complete red herring.

>.> > So you think that history then changes from state to state?
>>
>.> I said nothing about history, you fucking illiterate dimwit.
>
>Well, other than starting out this thread with:
>
> .> "Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an
> .> expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East",
>
>not a thing.

The moron pretends that history is determined by opinion rather than
evidence.

>Seth
>
>> The subject under discussion is the method by which courts of
>> our legal system designate and qualify certain people as expert witnesses.

That is the liar's dishonest red herring because he cannot provide the
evidence to back up his claims.

And even in court, expert witnesses get cross-examined to determine
the validity of their testimony before it gets admitted into evidence.

>> That is done by a judge who is an expert on the subject of evidence.
>> It is never done by loud mouth fools like you who cannot read.

Deliberate, psychopathic nastiness.

>> You are not qualified to decide who will be designated as an
>> expert witness.

And Mad Joe pretends he is?

>> The fact that you make the silly attempt proves your ignorance,
>> arrogance and complete dishonesty.

The pathological narcissist projects himself.

>> Neither I nor anyone else interested in serious legal matters
>> gives a flying fuck what you think about history or Dever or his opinion.

It's about discussion of fact,not mere opinion.

And in any case, Dever subsequently changed his mind.

>> He is a qualified expert in his field through years of experience
>> and education.

His reasons have to be given, which Mad Joe has never done,

>> You have no education or useful experience in anything and
>> nobody with any common sense gives a shit what you think.

Again, the pathological narcissist's lies only reflect himself.

[Joe Bruno]

Reasons for what, you babbling idiot? The judge who evaluates Dever or anyone else for designation as an "Expert Witness" reviews in detail the applicant's background and education and then decides to either qualify him or not.
That evaluation process is done by a judge with years of legal experience
and education in law and the rules of evidence such as the FRE.
It is NEVER done by an idiot like you who cannot read and knows nothing about the law.
>

[Joe Bruno]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:07:48 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

First of all, I never said Dr Dever was ever qualified or testified as an expert witness. I used him and his background as a hypothetical example to try to explain to idiots like you what the legal concept of "Expert Witness"means, since you were obviously completely ignorant on the subject.

Frankly, I never thought I would run into anyone who was that fucking ignorant.

I tried to clarify the matter by posting the Federal Rules of Evidence so you could read what the law is on the subject of Expert Witnesses.
That was futile because you are too lazy to read it or too illiterate to understand it and, worst of all, you are not interested in the truth.

[Tim]

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 5:35:23 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:37:07 AM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 11:36:24 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:59:32 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:16:39 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM UTC-7, Tim wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In such a case, his opinion alone has weight as evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong, that is a logical fallacy. It's called ...... . Quiz time for bruno. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you enlighten us, fool?
> > > > >
> > > > > You failed. The fallacy is called an appeal to authority, idiot.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFL! Here are the Federal Rules of Evidence. I have posted them 7 times before.
> > > > See Articles VI and VII.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
> > > >
> > > > Now we have proof you can't read.
> > >
> > > PS: Each state has it's own code of evidence, but most of them are very similar
> > > to the FRE, especially in the sections dealing with witnesses and expert testimony. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the FRE to be the law of the land in the United States.
> >
> > So you think that history then changes from state to state?
>
> I said nothing about history, you fucking illiterate dimwit.

"Professor Dever would be considered by any judge to be an expert witness in archaeology and ancient history of the Middle East."

Fourth word from the end. Did you even read what you cut and pasted, you stupid cunt?

<evasion snipped>

[Tim]

You do every time you look in a mirror.

>
> I tried to clarify the matter by posting the Federal Rules of Evidence so you could read what the law is on the subject of Expert Witnesses.

They have nothing to do with what constitutes history, you stupid cunt.

> That was futile because you are too lazy to read it or too illiterate to understand it and, worst of all, you are not interested in the truth.

You're too fucking stupid to realize that witnesses in your judicial system have fuck all to do with what constitutes history. Do yourself a favour and shut the fuck up.

[Cloud Hobbit]

How do you know he never visited? He just sort of pops up to be born in the nativity fiction, then disappears until we see him full grown trying to get crucified. Where was he for 30 years?

[Cloud Hobbit]

But you do?

Only in the sense that you show people one example of what dipshit means.

[Cloud Hobbit]

That would be your admission that you don't know, right?
Quick, go look it up.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Is he still claiming that William Dever thinks Moses was real and larger than life? That quote is from some news magazine show and is not his current thinking as I have shown with the following.
Why do you keep posting this outdated quote? You know it is a lie, you know Prof. Dever does not believe this crap any more and most likely said for television.

William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus;[6]
“”The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.

Dever writes that the central proposition of his book is very simple. "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'" He writes of archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that he believes that the biblical Moses never existed. He is talking about what can be gathered from archaeological evidence.

This next is from a book review of Dever's book "What Did the Bible Writers Know and When did They Know It."

About the historical Moses he writes:

…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.

About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."
>
This next is from an Interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?

We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

[For more on Moses and the Exodus, see Carol Meyer's interview.]

No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?

The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

So if he called Dever to the stand as an expert witness, he would not be friendly to artie/Joe's point of view.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Why do you want others to do your job?
Did you consult your psychiatrist for the reasons that you are lazy too?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Why would a con like Denver be involved in the matter of truth, the same as your con scripture and Torah ????