What if there really were evidence for Biblical Israel?
Matthias M. Giwer
We could find out what it is like by visiting a museum where one of
the many traveling exhibits sponsored by Israel would be on display. We
could compare these finds to the traveling exhibits sponsored by Egypt of
its ancient culture. We would see the treasures of its great kings. There
would be replicas of the inscriptions proclaiming their military triumphs.
There would be dioramas of their triumphal architecture and reconstructions
of their great cities and palaces.
Or would could learn by a direct comparison by first visiting
several of the many vast ruins in Egypt and then visiting several of the
vast ruins in Israel. This would let us compare their size, extent and
grandeur. Just to be fair we could also tour Rome and Athens so it would
not be just an either/or comparison with Egypt.
But as there is no evidence of biblical Israel these methods of
comparison are not possible.
What we can do is travel to Syria and Israel and compare artifacts
of Egyptian, Hittite and Greek rule of the two.
What we cannot do is find any evidence of an independent, indigenous
culture in Israel that can be differentiated from Phoenician or, to some
extent, Greek culture pre-Alexander.
What we cannot find in Israel is a single inscription mentioning
Israel. Nor can we find a single inscription in Israel mentioning any of its
kings. Nor can we find any of their palaces. Nor can we find anything
parallel to the things we can find in Egypt, Rome, and Greece. We cannot
find a single sign of the biblical Israel which ruled from Egypt to the
Euphrates.
--
A real American only needs one finger while an Englishman requires two.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4176
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Wed Oct 14 02:06:58 EDT 2009
Tom P
named Neil Asher Silberman found lots of evidence for a people and
kingdoms much like those described in the Hebrew bible. These two guys
have even written some books and a whole bunch of articles describing
their evidence. So have thousands of other historians and archaeologists.
The Nazi thug Giwer chooses not believe the evidence. Well, actually
the Nazi thug Giwer chose to remain deliberately ignorant of the
evidence because the tons (literally) of physical evidence utterly
destroys Giwer's bogus kook theories and exposes them for the Giwerian
gobbledygook they are.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
> and an historian named Neil Asher Silberman found lots
> of evidence for a people and kingdoms much like those
> described in the Hebrew bible.
No they didn't.
They concluded that the biblical stories were all a bunch of
cow patties, and then they tried to slap the "Israel" label on
the Pagan states to the north, in Lebanon & Syria.
You know, like Ugarit.
> These two guys have even written some books and a
> whole bunch of articles describing their evidence.
You're full of shit.
> So have thousands of other historians and archaeologists.
Liar. Finkelstein & Silberman are considered quite controversial.
http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
Oh, look, a cite!
See how that works, shit for brains?
Tiglath
> What we cannot find in Israel is a single inscription mentioning
> Israel.
We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
Tiglath
> What we cannot find in Israel is a single inscription mentioning
> Israel.
We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> We have an Egyptian encryption dated
> c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
No we don't.
Tom P
Obviously you didn't read the "cite" you are so proud of.
Your "cite" at http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
contains this quotation from Israel Finkelstein: "There is a stela in a
Cairo museum on which the word Israel first appears in written form. The
son of Ramesses II launched a military expedition to Caanan and
conquered Ashkelon and Gezer, and wrote the famous sentence, `Israel is
spoiled, his seed is not.' That was in 1207 BCE - after the conquest as
related in the Bible."
Oops!
Now what have you got to say, young JTEM?
Was Finkelstein lying?
Did Finkelstein make a mistake?
Or did young JTEM hang himself from the petard of his very own ignorance
again?
Bet that's painful, isn't it, young JTEM?
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ah, young JTEM the ignorant. Israel Finkelstein
> disagrees with you.
And you disagree with him. Well, you have up until now.
Yup, Finkelstein says the biblical stories are all a bunch
of hogwash, and you've spent the better part of a year
arguing biblical accuracy.
Then again, insane people like you have no problems
arguing contradictory positions, do you?
Anyhow, I never pretended to agree with Finkelstein, the
way he tries to glue the "Israel" label on people that
nobody else would ever dream of calling "Israeli," or
"Hebrew" or even "Jewish."
But what any of this has to do with Egypt is beyond
sense....
Tom P
> Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>> and an historian named Neil Asher Silberman found lots
>> of evidence for a people and kingdoms much like those
>> described in the Hebrew bible.
>
> No they didn't.
>
or articles?
If so, which?
> They concluded that the biblical stories were all a bunch of
> cow patties, and then they tried to slap the "Israel" label on
> the Pagan states to the north, in Lebanon & Syria.
>
Oh really, young JTEM?
On what page of which book did they draw such conclusions?
Be precise, young JTEM. You made the allegation, now it is your duty to
prove your allegation using sources. That is easy in this case because
Finkelstein and Silberman only co-wrote two books. I just happen to
have copies of both books co-authored by Finkelstein and Silberman on my
shelves so I can quickly know whether your quotations are accurate.
> You know, like Ugarit.
>
No, actually, I don't know. Please, do enlighten me.
>> These two guys have even written some books and a
>> whole bunch of articles describing their evidence.
>
> You're full of shit.
>
Come, come young JTEM. Surely you know that Finkelstein and Silberman
co-authored two books concerning the historicity of the Jewish
scriptures and both individually have a long list of publications
elsewhere.
>> So have thousands of other historians and archaeologists.
>
> Liar. Finkelstein & Silberman are considered quite controversial.
>
How does that controversy negate my proposition that "thousands of other
historians and archaeologists" have written books and other articles
describing the evidence of a Judean people writing in Hebrew in the
Judean highlands?
> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
>
> Oh, look, a cite!
>
Did you bother to read your "cite" before you posted it?
> See how that works, shit for brains?
>
Is this quotation from your "cite" an example of how "They [Finkelstein
and Silberman] concluded that the biblical stories were all a bunch of
cow patties"?
Interviewer: So are you saying that the United Monarchy is a lie?
Finkelstein: "I don' [sic] believe in lies in history. Spin, yes; lies,
no. What I am saying is that if in the seventh century BCE a strong
tradition existed in Jerusalem that the temple on the hill had been
built by the founders of the dynasty, I see no reason to question that.
That doesn't mean it was a huge and magnificent building. On the
question of the grandeur of the United Monarchy I find myself in a tough
scholarly confrontation: there is still a debate over the archaeological
remnants. Two magnificent palaces were found at Megiddo. [The noted
archaeologist] Yigael Yadin said they were from the 10th century BCE,
the period of Solomon, and could support the account of the great
monarchy, whereas I think they are from the ninth century BCE, 70 years
later, from the period of the northern kingdom."
Your "cite" also contains this quotation from Finkelstein: "There is a
stela in a Cairo museum on which the word Israel first appears in
written form. The son of Ramesses [sic] II launched a military
expedition to Caanan [sic] and conquered Ashkelon and Gezer, and wrote
the famous sentence, `Israel is spoiled, his seed is not.' That was in
1207 BCE - after the conquest as related in the Bible."
And then there is this: "According to the archaeological findings, the
Israelites came from the local stock: they were actually Canaanites who
became Israelites in a socio-economic process." Who was the ninny that
made these demands: "If "Hebrew" appears in 800 BC, that means these
Hebrew people also appeared at that time. So tell us where they came
from already, and what happened to the people who were there before them."
"Map it out for us. "
Well, those words were posted by the ninny young JTEM in the thread
"When Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers."
Finkelstein and Silberman seem to have already mapped it out for us,
young JTEM. As you would know if you had read their books. I see no
reason to dispute their assessment. Do you, young JTEM?
So Finkelstein and Silberman argue chronology, not existence.
Finkelstein and Silberman argue extant of lands and peoples conquered
and ruled, not existence. You should know the difference, young JTEM,
albeit you are in despicable company. Giwer argues the same mistaken
notions you do, JTEM. Finkelstein and Silberman used the Hebrew
inscriptions on ostraca as evidence to establish their revised
chronology, which is one factor that generated the controversy. Of
course, if one actually reads the books by Finkelstein and Silberman as
opposed to an interview in an on-line English language edition of an
Israeli newspaper, one would know that. Wouldn't one, young JTEM?
The difference between our perspectives concerning the published work of
Finkelstein and Silberman is that I have actually closely read their
books. You, young JTEM, obviously have not.
Which leads to this screamingly obvious question, young JTEM. Why are
do you comment on books you have never read?
Tom P
shall we?
>> Tiglath wrote:
>> We have an Egyptian encryption dated
>> c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
>>
> Young JTEM the ninny wrote:
>
> No we don't.
>
Tom P responded:
Ah, young JTEM the ignorant. Israel Finkelstein disagrees with you.
Obviously you didn't read the "cite" you are so proud of.
Your "cite" at http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
contains this quotation from Israel Finkelstein: "There is a stela in a
Cairo museum on which the word Israel first appears in written form. The
son of Ramesses [sic] II launched a military expedition to Caanan [sic]
and conquered Ashkelon and Gezer, and wrote the famous sentence, `Israel
is spoiled, his seed is not.' That was in 1207 BCE - after the conquest
as related in the Bible."
Oops!
Now what have you got to say, young JTEM?
Was Finkelstein lying?
Did Finkelstein make a mistake?
Or did young JTEM hang himself from the petard of his very own ignorance
again?
Bet that's painful, isn't it, young JTEM?
>> Ah, young JTEM the ignorant. Israel Finkelstein
>> disagrees with you.
>
> And you disagree with him. Well, you have up until now.
>
Do quote me concerning my alleged disagreement with Finkelstein.
I don't think you can, young JTEM. But do try.
> Yup, Finkelstein says the biblical stories are all a bunch
> of hogwash, and you've spent the better part of a year
> arguing biblical accuracy.
>
Surely you can provide pages numbers from Finkelstein's books wherein
Professor Finkelstein makes such allegations. Do so, young, JTEM.
> Then again, insane people like you have no problems
> arguing contradictory positions, do you?
>
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to
function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald.
> Anyhow, I never pretended to agree with Finkelstein, the
> way he tries to glue the "Israel" label on people that
> nobody else would ever dream of calling "Israeli," or
> "Hebrew" or even "Jewish."
>
Is this your version of Giwerian Gobbledygook, young JTEM? When you are
exposed as the woefully ignorant liar you are, you revert to
obfuscation, irrelevant changes of subject, and other assorted
nincompoopery. Figures. Is that really the best you can do, young JTEM?
>
> But what any of this has to do with Egypt is beyond
> sense....
>
I shall explain it to you, young JTEM. You are the ninny who denied the
existence of an Egyptian stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions
Israel. I pointed out to you, young JTEM, that the "cite" you yourself
produced and posted flatly contradicts you.
You lied, young JTEM. And the evidence that you lied was contained in
the very "cite" you posted, in the very words of a man you cited as an
authority. You didn't read your own "cite," young JTEM. How much of a
ninny are you, young JTEM?
By the way, thanks again for your most precious gift of laughter. It is
truly appreciated!
ADR
Well, Matt and JTEM are posting these stupidities time and time again,
hoping to generate some discussion on their points and draw newcomers
to argue with them. We have learned that they are willing to
disregard all evidence presented and keep pressing their point,
irrespective of how many times it has been proven erroneous. You are
not making a dent here, you are their latest victim. The best thing
altogether is to ignore their postings because we all know that they
are politically motivated. It would have been just so much more
appropriate to discuss their political point of view than their
fabrications.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, Matt and JTEM are posting these stupidities
What are you, a fucking retard? Nothing I've said isn't fact.
....which is why you won't deal with it, asswipe.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you are mistaken, JTEM.
You're wrong.
Finkelstein and Silberman are coonsidered very contraversial.
Nobody considers them the final word.
And although Finkelstein correctly focuses on the real
archaeological evidence and concludes that the biblical
stories are all a bunch of horse shit, he then throws away
his credibility by trying to shoehorn in an Israel, more or
less rationalizing.
He identifies the Pagan cities to the north of Judea as
"Israel" simply because his worldview demands that there
be an Israel. The rest of the planet considers these people
Phoneticians -- some even call them "Canaanites".
Anyhow, the cite told you everything you need to know,
you deranged freak. Try reading it this time:
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Was Finkelstein lying?
Who gives a shit? Seriously, you throw around the name like
it's some kind of authority, when in fact he's a magnet for
controversy.
Shit for brains.
> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
couldn't have written "Israel." And just forget about the myth
that they substituted a mouth symbol WITH A LITERAL MARK
for an 'L', pretending that someone transliterated the stele
as "ISRAER".
That's bullshit too.
Some stupid retards insist that the stele HAS TO mention
"Israel" so they /interpret/ it as mentioning "Israel."
And this is a fact. It is a fact so plain, so clear that only a
complete mental case would deny it. It does __NOT__ say
Israel, it is merely interpreted as "Israel."
So why do you idiots interpret it as Israel? You won't say.
All you do is pretend that is says "Israel,' hoping to convince
stupid people who are too goddamn lazy to investigate your
pathetic claim.
ADR
Unfortunately, all of it is.
Tom P
Feel perfectly free to follow your own advice.
You'll pardon me if I don't? Or not?
zayton
You were not asked to cite somebody else's bullshit _about_ what they
misrepresent Finkelstein and Silberman as having said. You were asked to
quote where they actually said any such thing.
ADR
Sure, go ahead
Weland
> Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you are mistaken, JTEM.
>
>
> You're wrong.
>
> Finkelstein and Silberman are coonsidered very contraversial.
>
> Nobody considers them the final word.
Interestingly both are minimalists and do not accept the biblical text
as an unqualified source and have often presented interpretations
"separating legend from history" that are at odds with the picture
presented in the biblical text. From such a position it is even more
telling then that 2 archaeologists who seek to *not* prove the biblical
text find evidence of "Israel" and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in
the first half of the first millennium BCE.
JTEM
"zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote:
> You were not asked to cite somebody else's bullshit
> _about_ what they misrepresent Finkelstein and
> Silberman as having said.
You're confused, to say the least. A retard invoked the names
of Finkelstein & Silberman -- there was no cite -- and I produced
a cite demonstrating why that was a really stupid idea.
What jackasses misread Finkelstein as saying is of no interest
to me. We can tell the jackasses from the normal people easily
enough: They're the drooling imbeciles pretending that I have to
come up with a cite at all.
It's the person making the claim who is supposed to support
what they are saying with cites.
You're welcome.
Martin Edwards
Dammit, I'm going to see if I can get hold of the bloody thing.
--
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
Tom P
so tracking down the studies they refer to and quote is a chore.
Tom P
> Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Was Finkelstein lying?
>
> Who gives a shit? Seriously, you throw around the name like
> it's some kind of authority, when in fact he's a magnet for
> controversy.
>
> Shit for brains.
>
You forgot to answer the question. Was Finkelstein lying about the
existence of the 1200 BCE Egyptian stela containing the word Israel?
Professor Finkelstein is an authority on the archaeology of the ancient
Near East. You are not, young JTEM. Finkelstein has real academic
credentials. You have none, young JTEM. Finkelstein has a long list of
peer reviewed publications. You do not, young, JTEM.
Professor Finkelstein is a fully credentialed archaeologist. You are a
knuckleheaded nincompoop awash in atheist prejudices. Good job, young JTEM!
>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>
> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
> couldn't have written "Israel." And just forget about the myth
> that they substituted a mouth symbol WITH A LITERAL MARK
> for an 'L', pretending that someone transliterated the stele
> as "ISRAER".
>
Brilliant, young JTEM!
So you claim that Professor Finkelstein lied in the interview extracts
contained in your "cite."
If that is the case, did Professor Finkelstein lie about everything else
he claimed in your "cite"?
Do you understand, young JTEM, that whatever cockamamie point you tried
to prove by introducing your "cite" also just collapsed because of your
insistence that Dr. Finkelstein and every other expert are totally wrong
about this stela?
No one claimed a letter "L" existed. As any fool knows, Egyptian
hieroglyphics is not a written language based upon letters and an alphabet.
Why do you attack me? You dug up your very own "cite" to prove some
point or other. I read your "cite" which is surely something you should
have done. Your "cite," young JTEM, contains words by the interviewee,
Dr. Finkelstein, boldly stating that this Egyptian stela containing the
symbol for Israel exists and is dated to 1200 BCE.
I know it is embarrassing to produce a "cite" that disproves your own
theory, but that is the price you pay for your arrogance and ignorance,
young JTEM. Good job, young JTEM!
Perhaps if you actually read your very own "cite" before you posted it,
you wouldn't look like such a jackass now.
> That's bullshit too.
>
> Some stupid retards insist that the stele HAS TO mention
> "Israel" so they /interpret/ it as mentioning "Israel."
>
So Dr. Finkelstein and every other expert who ever examined the stela
lied because young JTEM the nincompoop says so. Good job, JTEM!
> And this is a fact. It is a fact so plain, so clear that only a
> complete mental case would deny it. It does __NOT__ say
> Israel, it is merely interpreted as "Israel."
>
You lack the training, education, and experience to make such a
judgment, young JTEM. Thus your opinion is of no value.
Just keep wriggling, young JTEM. I'll bet all that wriggling and
thrashing around is painful seeing as you once again managed to hang
yourself from the petard of your very own ignorance. Good job, young JTEM!
> So why do you idiots interpret it as Israel? You won't say.
> All you do is pretend that is says "Israel,' hoping to convince
> stupid people who are too goddamn lazy to investigate your
> pathetic claim.
>
I don't interpret it as anything. Neither do you. You utterly lack the
education, training, and experience to judge the content of Egyptian
stela. So as you can perhaps dimly perceive in that tiny little
reptilian brain of yours, your opinion means nothing, young JTEM. Why
don't you read your "cites" before you post them in the future, young JTEM?
Tom P
> Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you are mistaken, JTEM.
>
> You're wrong.
>
> Finkelstein and Silberman are coonsidered very contraversial.
>
They're "coonsidered"[sic] are they, young JTEM the nincompoop?
And they are "contraversial"[sic] too, eh young JTEM the nincompoop?
Getting a bit too emotionally involved, young JTEM the nincompoop?
Rage really isn't a good thing. But Homer did compose a rather good epic
about rage. But the rage of young JTEM the nincompoop which causes him
to misspell words doesn't quite have the force of "Rage -- Goddess sing
of the rage of the son of Peleus, Achilles, murderous, doomed . . ."
So you are dodging and weaving again I see. Have you ever read any of
their books or articles?
If so, which one(s)?
Those are simple questions, young JTEM the nincompoop. The answer is
screamingly obvious.
> Nobody considers them the final word.
>
I never claimed they were the final word. I do claim they are qualified
to render an opinion. You, young JTEM the nincompoop, are not.
> And although Finkelstein correctly focuses on the real archaeological
> evidence and concludes that the biblical stories are all a bunch of
> horse shit, he then throws away his credibility by trying to shoehorn
> in an Israel, more or less rationalizing.
>
Because young JTEM the notorious nincompoop who has never read any of
the publications of Finkelstein or Silberman says so?
Your opinion is worthless, young JTEM.
You really should read from page 99 to 105 concerning the evidence for
the beginnings of a "full blown state" in Judah. Then you should read
Chapter 4, titled "Temple and Dynasty." I can name several other
passages from "David and Solomon" that utterly disprove you contention
that "Finkelstein . . . concludes that the biblical stories are all a
bunch of horse shit . . ." but these two will do for a start.
You are lying, young JTEM the nincompoop. And it is screamingly obvious
that you are lying. All of your information about Finkelstein and
Silberman is from various web pages. None of your information is from
sources Finkelstein and Silberman actually wrote.
> He identifies the Pagan cities to the north of Judea as "Israel"
> simply because his worldview demands that there be an Israel. The
> rest of the planet considers these people Phoneticians -- some even
> call them "Canaanites".
>
He does, does he? On which specific pages of which specific book did
Finkelstein and Silberman write such things, young JTEM?
And the dozens of ostraca inscribed in Hebrew and other physical
evidence from Samaria had nothing to do with it, right, young JTEM?
You see, young JTEM the nincompoop, the authors based their theory on
the archaeological evidence, the physical evidence. If you had read
their books, you would know that and could discuss specific bits of
evidence as described on specific pages. Alas, young JTEM the
nincompoop neglected to read the books he tries to discuss.
> Anyhow, the cite told you everything you need to know, you deranged
> freak. Try reading it this time:
>
> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
>
I did read it. Don't you wish you had, young JTEM?
What say we restore your snip here. Your readers should see how you
fled from truth.
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: They concluded that the biblical
>> stories were all a bunch of cow patties, and then they tried to
>> slap the "Israel" label on the Pagan states to the north, in
>> Lebanon & Syria.
>>
> Tom P replied, asking: Oh really, young JTEM?
>
> On what page of which book did they draw such conclusions?
>
> Be precise, young JTEM. You made the allegation, now it is your duty
> to prove your allegation using sources. That is easy in this case
> because Finkelstein and Silberman only co-wrote two books. I just
> happen to have copies of both books co-authored by Finkelstein and
> Silberman on my shelves so I can quickly know whether your quotations
> are accurate.
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: You know, like Ugarit.
>>
> Tom P replied: No, actually, I don't know. Please, do enlighten me.
>
>>> Tom P wrote: These two guys have even written some books and a
>>> whole bunch of articles describing their evidence.
>>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: You're full of shit.
>>
> Come, come young JTEM. Surely you know that Finkelstein and
> Silberman co-authored two books concerning the historicity of the
> Jewish scriptures and both individually have a long list of
> publications elsewhere.
>
>>> Tom P wrote:
>>> So have thousands of other historians and archaeologists.
>>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop replied:
>> Liar. Finkelstein & Silberman are considered quite controversial.
>>
> Tom P replied, asking?
> How does that controversy negate my proposition that "thousands of
> other historians and archaeologists" have written books and other
> articles describing the evidence of a Judean people writing in Hebrew
> in the Judean highlands?
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote:
>> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
>>
>> Oh, look, a cite!
>>
> Tom P replied, asking:
> Did you bother to read your "cite" before you posted it?
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote:
>> See how that works, shit for brains?
>>
Tom P replied asking:
Addendum:
Young JTEM the nincompoop doesn't seem to have answers for those
questions. So he deletes them, calls everyone else a liar, and runs away.
Why don't the rest of you atheists drop the hammer on young JTEM the
nincompoop. Young JTEM the nincompoop should be an embarrassment to the
rest of you.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, young JTEM, I quoted and cited your
> very own "cite."
Impossible, as I was replying to you.
...or do you mean AFTER I replied to your feeble attempt
at an appeal to authority?
> You forgot to answer the question.
Finkelstein is a magnet for controversy.
> Was Finkelstein lying about the existence of the 1200
> BCE Egyptian stela containing the word Israel?
I thought you knew: I'm not a mind reader. I would have no
idea if he's retarded, a liar or merely misinformed.
But, why do you think it's relevant? It's a fact that the ancient
Egyptians had no letter 'L', that the mouth sign on the stele
has a literal mark associated with it and that even if you
substitute an 'L' in the place of that second mouth sign it
still won't leave you with the word "Israel."
By any & every way you care to look at it, the stele does not
say "Israel," it is merely interpreted as "Israel."
And that interpretation is not only under dispute, but it is
completely unjustifiable UNLESS you begin with the premise
that there was an ancient Israel there at the time.
....which is called "Circular Reasoning."
You're welcome.
Tiglath
People like you, who cultivate ignorance as if it were a rare species
of flower, don't belong in history groups.
Look at page 73 here:
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> People like you,
Get a clue. It's not about me, shit head, it's about facts, facts
you can verify for yourself.
The ancient Egyptians had no letter 'L', so right there you know
they couldn't have written "Israel."
Most lunatics respond to this blaringly obvious fact by claiming
that they used the mouth sign in place of the 'L'.
Of course, that only works if the claim is that the word on the
stele is transliterated as "ISRAER."
But it's not. Nobody transliterates it as "ISRAER."
Secondly, that second mouth sign has a literal mark. So whoever
wrote it is telling you to read it literally as 'R' (or 'Ro'), and yet
you're claiming it should be read as an 'L' sound.
In short: Some people interpret a word on the Merneptah stele
as Israel.
Why? For the perfectly circular reason that they believe it has
to. See, they believe the bible has to be right, that there has
to be an Israel in the area, and this stele offers the closest thing
to the name Israel -- though it isn't very close.
All these are facts which you can easily verify yourself. Stop
being a shit head and go verify it.
Tiglath
>
> > You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
> > stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>
> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
> couldn't have written "Israel."
Lord have mercy...
No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
Clue: They did not write in English.
>
> Some stupid retards insist that the stele HAS TO mention
> "Israel" so they /interpret/ it as mentioning "Israel."
>
God forbid that a historian would interpret the ancient texts and
sources.
The retard this person refers to is no less than Fellow of the Royal
Society Professor Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the pioneering
British egyptologist, who discover the Merneptah Stele, in question.
What credentials does the poster have to recommend that we ought to
take his word over that of Professor Petrie?
>
> So why do you idiots interpret it as Israel?
>
This newsgroup is never short of goobers who dispute the academic
consensus but have only bluster to offer.
They are not only on their soapbox -- they are cemented to it.
They are not to be regarded seriously or credit is to be given to
their babbling; as they squarely belong to the category of
entertainment -- that large group of Usenet people always willing to
offer their backsides for vigorous kicking using rational evidence
from the sane world, or even better: their own words.
JTEM
Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because young
I know your brain doesn't work very well (or at
all), but try to keep up.
You mistakenly believe that Finkelstein establishes.... what?
And why do you mistakenly believe this?
Even if he wasn't super controversial, your waving him about
he was some sort of final authority wouldn't make sense.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > People like you,
>
> Get a clue. It's not about me, shit head, it's about facts, facts
> you can verify for yourself.
>
> The ancient Egyptians had no letter 'L', so right there you know
> they couldn't have written "Israel."
>
All that argument does is to proclaim loudly that you must lack the
gene that gives people a sense of ridicule.
How embarrassing to even suggest that Egyptians would spell a word
exactly as we do in English today.
By this obtuse poster's measure Assyria never existed because no
Akkadian tablet has the word "Assyria" in it.
And, naturally, any historian who engages in an act of interpretation
and states that Greek references to Syria, refer to Assyria, must be a
retard.
> In short: Some people interpret a word on the Merneptah stele
> as Israel.
>
> Why? For the perfectly circular reason that they believe it has
> to.
Wow. You don't even know what circular reasoning is. What a
poser.
Circular reason would be to assume prior existence of Israel when
interpreting the source as evidence for the existence of Israel.
That is not the case. The case is that we have a reference in 1200
B.C. that can be philologically linked to the name of a people who we
know to exist AFTER the time of the stela. No assumption of
existence prior to the stela is made, other that if they existed then
they may have existed for some time of unknown duration, prior to
being defeated.
You also show a pitiful understanding of history. Historical facts
are not mathematical theorems, whose absolute truth inescapably
follows from the axioms. There is always a degree of doubt in
historical matters and facts. It could be wrong that the word in the
stela refers to Israel. It is in the realm of the possible. The
point, however, is that it's highly likely that it refers to Israel.
Likelihood is as good as it get in history, and you don't even seem to
suspect it.
What people with the education you strain to feign do when they want
to rebut a historical fact is either find either better evidence or
give a cogent argument for an alternative interpretation of the
evidence. -- of necessity, an argument more persuasive than the one
currently supporting the fact at issue.
You do neither; you simply deny the truth of the fact and the best
argument you can make is to say that the discoverer of the stela was a
retard, and all who disagree with you have no brain.
How scholarly of you.
Notwithstanding how terrible an argument that is, it's still a much
better argument than your argument about not referring to Israel
because the Egyptians had no 'L'.
All your denials and rebuttals in this question are nothing but
gratuitous assertions that can be denied just as gratuitously You
come here with nothing. Insults and bluster won't do.
Is your real name Agamemnon? Perhaps a relation?
George
> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
> > > stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
> > There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
> > had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
> > couldn't have written "Israel."
>
> Lord have mercy...
>
> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>
> Clue: They did not write in English.
>
Hey.
Don't tell him that. Next thing you know he'll be claiming to have
read the bable in the origional Elizabethan English
Matt Giwer
> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
civilizations.
The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
Finkelstein is wrong.
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Thu Oct 15 17:48:40 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 14, 2:32 am, "Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> What we cannot find *in* Israel is a single inscription mentioning
>> Israel.
> We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
Egypt is not in Israel.
If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
civilizations.
The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
Finkelstein is wrong.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Oct 15 17:49:40 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 14, 2:32 am, "Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> Israel.
> We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
Egypt it not *in* Israel.
If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
civilizations.
The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
Finkelstein is wrong.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Thu Oct 15 17:51:10 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Professor Finkelstein is an authority on the archaeology of the ancient
> Near East.
Which demonstrates again just how wrong "authorities" have always been when
religious beliefs are involved.
If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
civilizations.
The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
Finkelstein is wrong.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Thu Oct 15 17:57:41 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
>> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
>> couldn't have written "Israel."
> Lord have mercy...
> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
> Clue: They did not write in English.
Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Thu Oct 15 17:59:11 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> How embarrassing to even suggest that Egyptians would spell a word
> exactly as we do in English today.
Show that the description of biblical Israel matches that on the inscription.
The Ilium rule applies. If there is no sufficient information to make such a
comparison then you have nothing but a religious belief.
If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
civilizations.
The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
Finkelstein is wrong.
--
Hodie Idibus Octobribus MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu Oct 15 18:02:11 EDT 2009
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>
>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>
> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
> civilizations.
>
> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
>
> Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and
> Egypt Finkelstein is wrong.
>
There is only one set of facts, Giwer. And those facts are not subject
to falsification. The facts and physical evidence disprove you bogus
kook theories.
The evidence is there. It really exists. Because you are unable to
rise above your prejudices is your problem, Giwer. But your prejudices
do not change the facts. And then there is your little problem that you
have little idea what the evidence consists of. You could educate
yourself, but you obviously prefer spewing vitriol. Good job, Giwer!
So you and the nincompoop young JTEM just keep throwing your little
temper tantrums. Nothing changes.
Tom P
> Tiglath wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>>>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>>> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
>>> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
>>> couldn't have written "Israel."
>
>> Lord have mercy...
>
>> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>
>> Clue: They did not write in English.
>
> Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
>
Priene, and that is not an exhaustive list, Giwer. What point were you
trying to make, exactly, Giwer?
Tom P
> Tiglath wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2:32 am, "Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>> What we cannot find *in* Israel is a single inscription
>>> mentioning
>>> Israel.
>
>> We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
>
> Egypt is not in Israel.
>
> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
> civilizations.
>
> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
>
> Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and
> Egypt Finkelstein is wrong.
>
>
of humor?
That laughter you hear, Giwer, is in response to your latest heapin'
helpin' of your trademark Giwerian Gobbledygook.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
ADR
> Tom P wrote:
> > How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>
> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
> civilizations.
Do not make me laugh. If we actually follow your line of reasoning,
the Myceneans never existed either. And I have a clue for you: you do
not get to decide what is evidence or not. You can comment on
evidence (or ignore it, as you do so often) but you do not get to
decide what is evidence or not. Get it?
> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Wow, I am stunned by the power of your deductions
> Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
> Finkelstein is wrong.
Wow, what a change. Finkelstein was a hero when you needed him, he is
wrong now. And really, who made the yardstick that the evidence has
to be comparable ot Greece, Rome and Egypt??? You???
ADR
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
> >>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
> >> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
> >> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
> >> couldn't have written "Israel."
> > Lord have mercy...
> > No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
> > Clue: They did not write in English.
>
> Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
Where are the ruins of Mittanni that are comparable to Thebes and the
Acropolis?? Does this mean that Mittanni did not exist?? Where are
the ruins of the NeoHittine empire that are comparable to Thebes and
the Acropolis?? You let me know!!!
I have heard of bizzare arguments before but you take the cake my
man!!!
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 14, 2:32 am, "Matthias M. Giwer" <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> Israel.
> We have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
BAR: Is there any possibility that the Israelites were the people who did
the conquering?
Finkelstein: Well, not according to my point of view.
BAR: Why not?
Finkelstein: I don't know what an Israelite is in the 12th century B.C.
If the great, white father does not know what is meant by Israel in the 12th
c. BC by which method of divination did you determine it.
--
Atheism dignifies theism. There is no special name for
those who do not believe in faeries.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4190
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Thu Oct 15 19:44:16 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 15, 2:49 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Tom P wrote:
>>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
>> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
>> civilizations.
> Do not make me laugh.
As you lack a sense of irony that is most certainly an impossibility.
> If we actually follow your line of reasoning,
> the Myceneans never existed either.
Which only indicates you are not familiar with the evidence for that culture.
What has been found does in fact match the surviving descriptions of that
culture. That is the point. What is found has to match the surviving
descriptions. Call it the Troy rule as it applies to Ilium.
> And I have a clue for you: you do
> not get to decide what is evidence or not.
Do not you believers claim the same right? The right to assert a group of
illiterate savages ruled from Egypt to the Euphrates?
> You can comment on
> evidence (or ignore it, as you do so often) but you do not get to
> decide what is evidence or not. Get it?
No, I do not get your assertion.
I point out what would survive as evidence for such a great kingdom as the
Israel described in the bible. As you can see from another post, people are
grossly misrepresenting Finkelstein.
>> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
> Wow, I am stunned by the power of your deductions
Not even a child should be. I am reminded of the commercials where a child is
made a misleading offer when I hear evidence of biblical Israel has been found
and then am only shown potsherds.
>> Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and Egypt
>> Finkelstein is wrong.
> Wow, what a change. Finkelstein was a hero when you needed him, he is
> wrong now. And really, who made the yardstick that the evidence has
> to be comparable ot Greece, Rome and Egypt??? You???
As you can see from the interview, he is being misrepresented by you
desperate believers.
--
Hodie Idibus Octobribus MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Oct 15 19:47:16 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
What is unusual in the idea of finding ruins which match the description of
biblical Israel as being a greater power than Athens ever was? Did Athens ever
rule a territory equivalent of the land from Egypt to the Euphrates? Of course
not. But biblical Israel did. So it is written. So believers believe.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Thu Oct 15 20:07:48 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Tom P wrote:
>>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
>> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
>> civilizations.
>> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
>> Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece, Rome and
>> Egypt Finkelstein is wrong.
> Endlessly repeating lies will not make them into truth, Giwer.
> There is only one set of facts, Giwer. And those facts are not subject
> to falsification. The facts and physical evidence disprove you bogus
> kook theories.
> The evidence is there. It really exists.
It is difficult do see why you keep trying to offer illiterate barbarians
without political unity as biblical Israel.
You clowns claim to have evidence of biblical Israel. Yet when we rationally
expect to see evidence commensurate with the bible's description of Israel you
have a few potsherds and small farming villages. How do you expect to pass
that off as evidence of biblical Israel to people who are not as desperate as
you to believe?
--
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/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Thu Oct 15 23:24:27 EDT 2009
Tiglath
> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
Another thread goes down the tubes because of the recalcitrant
ignoramuses who frequent history groups.
These cretins have hardened to any shame and embarrassment their
parades of ignorance can heap on them. The well-deserve vituperation
sustained for years has made them into knots of scar tissue immune to
further scorn.
I dealt with this poster many years back and he is still here
infecting threads with his insalubrious presence.
There was no biblical Israel he says.
There should be a god just to punish these morons.
Biblical Israel spans from the time of Abraham until Jesus, and none
of it existed, this goober says.
Well, there is no evidence whatsoever for Abraham and Moses, but there
is plenty of evidence for the later biblical Israel. Who did the
Assyryans conquer in the Levant in the eighth century, if not? What
about the Babylonian captivity? Didn't the captives come from
biblical Israel? How about Nabu's siege of Jerusalem, a historical
event, was not he attacking biblical Israel? And what about Israel
under the Hellenistic kings? Or the Herodean kingdom?
No bliblical Israel... It is to laugh.
Of course this is the kind of moronic statement one would expect from
a Holocaust denier.
Why don't you fuck off and instead of posting inanities go carve a few
swastikas on your testicles?
ADR
> ADR wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 2:49 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Tom P wrote:
> >>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
> >> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
> >> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
> >> civilizations.
> > Do not make me laugh.
>
> As you lack a sense of irony that is most certainly an impossibility.
>
> > If we actually follow your line of reasoning,
> > the Myceneans never existed either.
>
> Which only indicates you are not familiar with the evidence for that culture.
> What has been found does in fact match the surviving descriptions of that
> culture. That is the point. What is found has to match the surviving
> descriptions. Call it the Troy rule as it applies to Ilium.
What are the surviving descriptions of Mycenean Greeks??? I am not
aware of any contemporary source describing the Myceneans.
> > And I have a clue for you: you do
> > not get to decide what is evidence or not.
>
> Do not you believers claim the same right? The right to assert a group of
> illiterate savages ruled from Egypt to the Euphrates?
Here you go again (and again and again). Because we object to your
utterings, does it mean that we believe biblical assertions about the
extent of the power of a unified dynasty? Where did I say anything
that led you to this conclusion??? I actually said the opposite. It
is you who are out there with outrageous assertions that everything in
the Bible is a fabrication put together in Hellenistic times.
> As you can see from the interview, he is being misrepresented by you
> desperate believers.
He is much more distorted by you. Even if we assume that the kingdom
of Solomon was mostly a ficion of later times, Finkelstein has
actually unearthed a lot of information about the successor kingdoms.
He also does not question the existence of a state of Israel in the
12th century BCE, just its idealistic portrayal in the Bible. So,
chill.
Martin Edwards
Jacobean. Actually there is a tale about this. An American politician
was talking to someone about bilingualism. The other person said, "If
English was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me". He changed
the subject.
--
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
Martin Edwards
I believe he was talking about Israel. The point being that if the
kingdom of Solomon as described in the Bible existed, there would be
some remains comparable to Egypt or at least some of the Mesopotamian
civilizations. Cue the Ishtar Gate: "When the children of Israel
arrived in Babylon............" Yeah, right.
Martin Edwards
but this is hardly the point. The same claims are not being made for
Mitanni.
Martin Edwards
>>> c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
>
> People like you, who cultivate ignorance as if it were a rare species
> of flower, don't belong in history groups.
>
> Look at page 73 here:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=uoAefzqPGAUC&dq=Ancient+Egyptian+Literature:+Volume+II:+The+New+Kingdom&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Cxf1SRJPvP&sig=tMyqkijvyl6C1X7P5LDhM2VFL5g&hl=en&ei=UlfXSv-wN5Pl8QaAyIXuCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=israel&f=false
Some chapter headings, and an assumption by a Christian. Next?
Martin Edwards
Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek. I have yet to receive a reply
as to whether it was like Greek Cypriot or SMG.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Lord have mercy...
Please stop calling me "Lord."
> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
And nobody here is claiming that it did. But you and
other idiots __ARE__ claiming that the Merneptah
stele mentions Israel.
Seriously, are you really THAT stupid?
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > The ancient Egyptians had no letter 'L', so right
> > there you know they couldn't have written "Israel."
> All that argument does is
....completely refute the jackasses who
keep insisting that the stele literally reads "Israel"
and that it's not just an interpretation.
Jackass.
> By this obtuse poster's measure Assyria never existed
> because no Akkadian tablet has the word "Assyria" in it.
This would make sense if it weren't for the fact that I am
opposing idiots who are claiming that the stele __DOES__
mention "Israel," and is not merely INTERPRETED as
Israel.
It's easy to see why you missed this, "following the
exchange" requiring reading comprehension and all that....
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Another thread goes down the tubes because
Besides misattributing claims & embarking on
extensive though far from original ad hominem,
do you have any other tricks?
For instance, are you capable of constructing an
actual case for your retarded position. This stele
which you agree does not mention "Israel" should
be interpreted as mention Israel because.... ???
Do go on, shit for brains.
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tiglath wrote:
> > Look at page 73 here:
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=uoAefzqPGAUC&dq=Ancient+Egyptian+Lit...
>
> Some chapter headings, and an assumption by
> a Christian. Next?
The idiot is laboring under the assumption that I said
nobody is claiming to read "Israel" on the stele.
JTEM
> On Oct 15, 6:04 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
>
> Another thread goes down the tubes because of the recalcitrant
> ignoramuses who frequent history groups.
>
> These cretins have hardened to any shame and embarrassment their
> parades of ignorance can heap on them. The well-deserve vituperation
> sustained for years has made them into knots of scar tissue immune to
> further scorn.
>
> I dealt with this poster many years back and he is still here
> infecting threads with his insalubrious presence.
>
> There was no biblical Israel he says.
>
> There should be a god just to punish these morons.
>
> Biblical Israel spans from the time of Abraham until Jesus, and none
> of it existed, this goober says.
>
> Well, there is no evidence whatsoever for Abraham and Moses, but there
> is plenty of evidence for the later biblical Israel.
> Who did the Assyryans conquer in the Levant in the eighth
> century, if not?
That is a retarded argument, even by your standards.
After all, the Levant was in the full control of the 18th dynasty
Egyptians without any "Israel". Likewise, the Macedonians
conquered the region without any "Israel."
So, if there's one thing even the likes of you should understand
it's that we never required an "Israel" in order for empires to
conquer the Levant.
> What about the Babylonian captivity?
Never happened.
> Didn't the captives come from biblical Israel?
Again, this is called "Circular Reasoning."
> How about Nabu's siege of Jerusalem,
You're confused. Not only didn't any Pagan gods lay
siege to Jerusalem, but Jerusalem isn't Israel.
> And what about Israel under the Hellenistic kings?
You misspelled "The Levant."
> Or the Herodean kingdom?
Judea?
You're making one of my points, sticking "Israel" on
absolutely everything you can find there. Idiot.
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tiglath wrote:
> > Is your real name Agamemnon? Perhaps a relation?
>
> Argyros Argyrou, Northampton, England. He also thinks
> that ancient Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek.
> I have yet to receive a reply as to whether it was like
> Greek Cypriot or SMG.
Your writing leaves a lot to be desired, as the "He" you refer
to is a different person than the one the Tiglath troll is
referring to.
Tiglath
The case for the Stela mentioning Israel has been properly made since
it's discovery. Philologists agree that it is the only
interpretation that has merit.
Again, what rebuttal do you have worth reading other than mindless
denials and insults?
You must think that denying the historical consensus is all it takes
to rebut it, but then you would.
Just because you continue to be here unharmed despite your moronic
babbling, it doesn't mean that you are invited or that your ideas make
any progress persuading anyone.
Learn that important difference.
Tiglath
Your hate is best directed to whoever brought you up, moron.
We have to deal yet with another bad-mannered victim of a bad
education.
To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
land, existed during biblical time is something that even the most
rabid anti-Zionist would not do, if they had an ounce of sanity left
in him.
I understand being skeptical of historical claims made in the bible,
but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
His lizard brain replete with hate for the Jews overpowers this
goober's weak intellect in a most curious manner. It even deprives
him of his sense of ridicule and forth he sallies with the most
preposterous statements.
Again, to state not only in public but in a history group that there
never existed a Jewish nation in the span of time covered in the bible
is such a gigantic falsehood that anyone who supports it even remotely
deserves to be shunned until he agrees to cease and desist.
But I appreciate your entertainment value and so kindly volunteering
to be the group buffoon, for the Reader's amusement.
Cheers.
Matthias M. Giwer
> On Oct 15, 6:04 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical Israel.
> Another thread goes down the tubes because of the recalcitrant ignoramuses
> who frequent history groups.
The point as always is the regular appearance of fools who belief
they can find real history in a fantasy collection. You are a repeat
offender.
> These cretins have hardened to any shame and embarrassment their parades
> of ignorance can heap on them. The well-deserve vituperation sustained
> for years has made them into knots of scar tissue immune to further scorn.
It is not like we have ever come to expect evidence from you
biblethumpers.
> I dealt with this poster many years back and he is still here infecting
> threads with his insalubrious presence.
You have started learning a new word every day. It is good for you.
> There was no biblical Israel he says.
So do you in you examples of the logical fallacy of begging the
question.
> There should be a god just to punish these morons.
Why would a just god give a damn?
> Biblical Israel spans from the time of Abraham until Jesus, and none
> of it existed, this goober says.
Where might be the evidence of a kingdom of Israel in the time of
Jesus? As neither history nor the gospels do not make such a claim what
delusion leads you to claim it existed at that time?
> Well, there is no evidence whatsoever for Abraham and Moses,
That must have been hard to type.
> but there
> is plenty of evidence for the later biblical Israel.
Here come the examples of the logical fallacy of begging the
question.
> Who did the
> Assyryans conquer in the Levant in the eighth century, if not?
No one knows.
> What about the Babylonian captivity?
There is no evidence of any such thing.
> Didn't the captives come from biblical Israel?
As there is no evidence of any captivity you might as well ask of
they came from Rome.
> How about Nabu's siege of Jerusalem, a historical event, was not he
> attacking biblical Israel?
No evidence of that either but keep using the fallacy you illogical
twit.
> And what about Israel under the Hellenistic kings? Or the Herodean
> kingdom?
They may have ruled a place called Judea but there is no mention of
any Israel.
> No bliblical Israel... It is to laugh.
I got it! You are comic relief!
> Of course this is the kind of moronic statement one would expect from a
> Holocaust denier.
> Why don't you fuck off and instead of posting inanities go carve a few
> swastikas on your testicles?
What a strange fetish you have.
--
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.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Fri Oct 16 05:04:19 EDT 2009
ADR
> Argyros Argyrou, Northampton, England. He also thinks that ancient
> Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek. I have yet to receive a reply
> as to whether it was like Greek Cypriot or SMG.
Ancient Greek was not pronounced like modern Greek! At least not in
the classical era. But it all depends what one regards as "ancient
Greek". The transition to modern Greek pronunciation most likely
begun in late Hellenistic, early Roman times.
ADR
> After all, the Levant was in the full control of the 18th dynasty
> Egyptians without any "Israel". Likewise, the Macedonians
> conquered the region without any "Israel."
First of all, it is silly to one assume that the 18th Dynasty Egypt
ruled directly anything in Palestine and Syria. Egyptians probably
exercised indirect control of coastal cities and most likely had
little or not involvement with developments in the interior. The
Canaanite and Jewish settlements were just too insignificant for any
Pharaoh to consider seriously or mount an expedition. And Israel did
not exist during the period of the Alexandrine conquest of the Persian
Empire. It was part (and likely not that significant) of a wider
Persian satrapy.
> So, if there's one thing even the likes of you should understand
> it's that we never required an "Israel" in order for empires to
> conquer the Levant.
Well, the Assyrian kings thought otherwise and included Israel in the
list of their enemies and areas captured. These facts (as well as the
Assyrian inscriptions) were presented here many a time and your
response is ....to ignore them. The remaining kingdom, that of Judea,
is also attested in Assyrian inscriptions.
> > What about the Babylonian captivity?
>
> Never happened.
Well, if it did not happen, how do you explain the cuneiform tablets
that ascertain the presence of the captured Judean royal family in
Babylon? I forget, you did not ever reply to that either.
> > How about Nabu's siege of Jerusalem,
>
> You're confused. Not only didn't any Pagan gods lay
> siege to Jerusalem, but Jerusalem isn't Israel.
"Pagan Gods"? the reference was to the king of Babylon. And yes,
Israel had disappeared by that time. What was there, was the kingdom
of Judea.
> Judea?
Yes, but this is in accord with the information in the OT, right?
Does the OT deny the disappearance of the kingdom of Israel by the mid
7th century BCE? I think not! Are you indicating that you are in
agreement with the information in the OT?
> You're making one of my points, sticking "Israel" on
> absolutely everything you can find there. Idiot.
According to the OT, the unitary kingdom dissolved in the late 10th
century BCE. There is no historical disagreement on the existence of
the succeeding kingdoms (Israel and Judea). They are well attested by
contemporary evidence (Assyrian and Babylonian) The argument is if
the unitary kingdom (that of David and Solomon) ever attained the
level of influence and power indicated in the OT. I think that it is
likely that it expanded its power during a period of retrenchment of
Egyptian overlordship due to internal troubles of the 21st dynasty. I
do not think that it reached levels of material wealth indicated in
the OT. But I do not see contradictory evidence as to why somebody
ruling the hills of Judea between 1000 to 920 BCE who had access to
some stable military would not have had a substantial influence in the
area. There was a power vacuum in the area at that time.
Tiglath
It is a worn-out trick used by ignoramuses like you to play the
definitions game when they inevitably lose their argument and try to
weasel out of the corner they worked themselves into. So let us set
down what "Israel" means in this discussion.
Israel is the name of the Jewish nation in ancient times located in
the Levant, referring to the people know as the Jews, who shared a
culture and religion, whether they were politically united or divided
in different kingdoms or tribes. The traditional capital of Israel
in this meaning was Jerusalem. Israel in this meaning excludes the
Jews of the Diaspora, as the discussion refers to the Land of Israel
more than the People of Israel.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter much. If you agree with
Giwer's statement, that Israel never existed in ancient times, it
doesn't matter if by Israel you mean the Jewish nation or the Kingdom
of Israel, which excludes Jerusalem; since the evidence for the
existence of both, from non-biblical sources, is overwhelming.
>
> After all, the Levant was in the full control of the 18th dynasty
> Egyptians without any "Israel". Likewise, the Macedonians
> conquered the region without any "Israel."
>
> So, if there's one thing even the likes of you should understand
> it's that we never required an "Israel" in order for empires to
> conquer the Levant.
>
Silly point. There is no "require" about it. The tablet describing
how the Assyrian king "Pul" conquered Israel, in particular, in 732
B.C. is in the British Museum. Other Assyrian inscriptions record his
victory over King Azariah of Judah, which the bible omits. The
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicle (ABC), records the conquest of
Samaria by Shalmaneser V. All non-biblical sources.
What else do you need?
"The earliest Assyrian mention of Israel occurs in the context of
Shalmaneser III's battle against a coalition of Levant states at the
Battle of Qarqar on the Orontes in 853"
-- Kuhrt, A., 1995, "The Ancient Near-East," Volume II,
p. 472, Routledge.
Kuhrt refers to the Kurhk Monolith, a slab mentioning the northern
kingdom of Israel and its king, Ahab.
Face the evidence because the evidence is facing you.
> > What about the Babylonian captivity?
>
> Never happened.
>
The Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicle (no. 5 11-15) describes how
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, seized its king (Jehoiachin) and
people. See for yourself.
And...
"A small number of ration texts have been found in the great palace in
Babylon which name some of the people who received provisions from the
royal purse. Among them appears Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah,
and his family; they are listed several times as recipients of
substantial quantities of oil, which show that some of the 'royal
prisoners' lived at the Babylonian court and ate at the royal table."
-- Kuhrt, A., 1995, "The Ancient Near-East," Volume II,
p. 608, Routledge.
> > Didn't the captives come from biblical Israel?
>
> Again, this is called "Circular Reasoning."
The only circular thing in this post is the shadow of the hollow
sphere your neck holds.
>
> > How about Nabu's siege of Jerusalem,
>
> You're confused. Not only didn't any Pagan gods lay
> siege to Jerusalem, but Jerusalem isn't Israel.
>
The name game already?
Israel is a word that has several meanings. Now the poster uses the
meaning that will delay momentarily the ruin of his precarious
argument as needed. How shameful.
Israel is the Jewish nation, first and foremost, now or then. It
happens to be also an ancient division of that nation, as in the
Kingdom of Israel, or the Northern Kingdom. It also happens to refer
to the Jewish People, or the Jewish Land, or the land promised by God
to the Jews. Take your pick, as context requires.
It is quite evident that the meaning of Israel apppropiate here as to
have existed or not, is that of the ancient Jewish nation, either
united or divided.
When Giwer or you or another bigot says that Israel never existed, he
doesn't mean The Kingdom of Israel never existed. They mean that the
Jewish nation never existed, for the Jews of Judah were
indistinguishable from the Jews of the the Kingdom of Israel, other
than in politics.
Jerusalem was not in the KINGDOM of Israel, but Jerusalem has always
been in Israel.
Learn the difference at long last.
> > And what about Israel under the Hellenistic kings?
>
> You misspelled "The Levant."
>
> > Or the Herodean kingdom?
>
The Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel (140–37 BC) is still inside the
biblical time of Israel.
And so is the Herodian Dynasty (37 B.C. to the end of the biblical
time).
Go ahead let the readers see your naked assertions that the Hasmonean
Kingdom of Israel didn't exist. Laughing is healthy.
> Judea?
>
> You're making one of my points, sticking "Israel" on
> absolutely everything you can find there. Idiot.
Although much of the bible's history is in dispute, it is not all
wrong. The debate about details is endless, but nobody in his right
mind would dispute general facts like the very existence of Israel,
either in the general meaning or meaning the Kingdom of Israel. To do
so qualifies you as a total loon, not worthy of even a second look.
I reply to you because of my love of mockery and the perverse
enjoyment in exposing abysmally ignorant morons and bigots like you.
So... please write more.
Italo
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
> To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
> land, existed during biblical time
<snip>
Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
> but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
> covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
> becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
--
Boycott American products
Tiglath
> And Israel did not exist during the period of the Alexandrine
> conquest of the Persian Empire. It was part (and likely not
> that significant) of a wider
> Persian satrapy.
>
Lord have mercy...
Just when you think things could not get worse... ZAP!
JTEM and Giwer in attendance are far more than enough morons for the O-
rings of any thread.
Enter ADR.
Good Lord... God creates them and they find each other.
Three Musketeers and no D'Artagnan.
So when Germany occupied France, France didn't exist?
When Persia occupied Israel, Israel didn't exist?
Get ready, folks. The Ignorant Bigotry of Giwer and JTEM is about to
get a shot in the arm with ADR's Anguished Prose.
Anyone wants to throw in the kitchen sink as well?
>
> Well, the Assyrian kings thought otherwise and included Israel in the
> list of their enemies and areas captured. These facts (as well as the
> Assyrian inscriptions) were presented here many a time and your
> response is ....to ignore them.
A phrase that conjures up kettles and pots.
> According to the OT [...]
ADR is willing to provide the circular reasoning the JTEM has been
wishing for...
This is the WRONG thread to quote the OT as a historical reference.
ADR has not noticed yet.
ADR
Here is a number of assertions based on poor logic
> Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
Who said that it was "synonymous"? To a great degree, Jews and modern
Israelites are connected with the Kingdom of Judah but the kingdom of
Judah and kingdom of Israel circa the 11th century BCE are not
synonymous and nobody said that they were.
> The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
That we do not know. Unfortunately, the evidence of the exact
religion of the northern kingdom of Israel has disappeared. We can
infer that the OT, mostly written in the 6th and 5th century BCE,
attempts a reconciliation of the northern and southern set of beliefs
and thus the dublications and the two different names for the main
deity. What of it?
> Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
No modern groups share the identical gene pool as their ancient
counterparts. As in most nations and ethnic groups, it is culture that
defines them rather than genes
> > but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
> > covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
> > becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
>
> Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
The northern kingdom of Israel ends then but the very admission of the
OT itself. So what??? It is not that you are telling us anything new
here. The OT includes this information quite clearly.
George
> Why don't you fuck off and instead of posting inanities go carve a few
> swastikas on your testicles?
That task would be impossible as the mentioned unmentionables don't
exist on a nazi
Tiglath
>
> > And what about Israel under the Hellenistic kings? Or the Herodean
> > kingdom?
>
> They may have ruled a place called Judea but there is no mention of
> any Israel.
>
Decades of anti-Semitism and still ignorant about your enemy.
Shameful.
To deny that Judea is Israel is to deny that King David was an
Israelite.
The name Judea is a derivation from the ancient Kingdom of Judah,
which arose when the ISRAELITE tribe of Judah split to form its own
kingdom in southern Israel, with David as its king, who later would
unify both kingdoms, allegedly.
Gower has a thing for "physical evidence," folks, as you must know.
No other kind of evidence is good for him.
Well, he is out of luck, for we have (and one can buy) Hasmonean coins
that show a menorah. What better is there to identify Israel? The
Hasmonean Dynasty capital was in Jerusalem, of course -- or Judah.
The northern and the southern kingdoms of Israel (Israel and Judah)
are what the Koran calls The Two Houses of Israel.
Jewish nationalism did not rise until shortly after biblical times
when the name Israel began to be favored over Judah by southern Jews
for self-description. And as early as 60 AD coins minted in Jerusalem
bore "Shekel of Israel" in Hebrew.
The fact that a southern Jewish kingdom rival to the northern kingdom,
which retained "Israel" in its name, avoided use of the word, cannot
be used as evidence that Israel didn't exist. It's a moronic
argument.
> > No bliblical Israel... It is to laugh.
>
> I got it! You are comic relief!
>
It's very hard to credibly mock up the food chain when you are a
Holocaust Denier, Giwer.
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Tiglath wrote:
>>>> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>>>>>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>>>>> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
>>>>> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
>>>>> couldn't have written "Israel."
>>>
>>>> Lord have mercy...
>>>
>>>> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>>>
>>>> Clue: They did not write in English.
>>>
>>> Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
>>>
>> Samos, Ephesus, Delos, Kos, Didyma, Miletus, Chlaros, Olympia,
>> Mycenae, Priene, and that is not an exhaustive list, Giwer. What
>> point were you trying to make, exactly, Giwer?
>
> I believe he was talking about Israel. The point being that if the
> kingdom of Solomon as described in the Bible existed, there would be
> some remains comparable to Egypt or at least some of the Mesopotamian
> civilizations. Cue the Ishtar Gate: "When the children of Israel
> arrived in Babylon............" Yeah, right.
>
in Israel before the 5th century BCE?
There are no ruins in Greece Magna Graece comparable to the Acropolis.
Although some in Ionia and Magna Graece compare quite favorably.
Has anyone claimed that ancient Israel or Judea ever controlled an
empire of the scope of Egypt's or the Athenian Empire during the age of
Pericles?
Whatever Judea and the Northern Kingdom were, they never approached the
wealth of Egypt or the major Greek city-states. To even imply such a
thing is jackassery. It takes great wealth and religious devotion to
spend the lavish amounts of time, treasure, and labor to construct
religious edifices on a monumental scale as occurred at the places I
listed, and at Thebes and Athens.
The problem with Giwer is this: Giwer has little idea what ruins do
exist in modern Israel from antiquity. And little idea what ruins exist
on the Acropolis or at Thebes. If you don't believe me, ask Giwer what
is distinctive about the ruins at Thebes and Athens that differentiates
those two cites from all others. Giwer doesn't know.
Tom P
> ADR wrote:
>>> Tiglath wrote:
>>>> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>>>>>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>>>>> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
>>>>> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
>>>>> couldn't have written "Israel."
>>>> Lord have mercy...
>>>> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>>>> Clue: They did not write in English.
>>> Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
>
>> Acropolis?? Does this mean that Mittanni did not exist?? Where are
>> the ruins of the NeoHittine empire that are comparable to Thebes and
>> the Acropolis?? You let me know!!!
>
>> I have heard of bizzare arguments before but you take the cake my
>> man!!!
>
> description of biblical Israel as being a greater power than Athens ever
> was? Did Athens ever rule a territory equivalent of the land from Egypt
> to the Euphrates? Of course not. But biblical Israel did. So it is
> written. So believers believe.
>
You have no idea of the extent of the Athenian Empire, Giwer.
How many square miles made up the territories listed by Thucydides as
belonging to the Athenian Empire compared to the square miles attributed
to Solomon's kingdom?
As far as what is written being true and believe, you write all kinds of
nincompoopery that is neither true nor believable. Thus the term
Giwerian Gobbledygook so accurately describes your posts. But for some
reason you and the buffoon JTEM continue to believe in spite of the vast
physical evidence that proves you wrong, Giwer.
Italo
ADR <aret...@yahoo.com> schreef:
> On Oct 16, 11:15 am, Italo <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a number of assertions based on poor logic
>
> > Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
>
> Who said that it was "synonymous"?
Tiglath didn't specify how he defines 'Jewish' when he wrote "Israel,
meaning the Jewish nation", so perhaps he takes it to be so.
> To a great degree, Jews and modern
> Israelites are connected with the Kingdom of Judah
They are connected through their religion, yes.
> but the kingdom of
> Judah and kingdom of Israel circa the 11th century BCE are not
> synonymous and nobody said that they were.
>
> > The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
>
> That we do not know.
We know it because the biblical texts imply it.
> Unfortunately, the evidence of the exact
> religion of the northern kingdom of Israel has disappeared.
Yet much may be factually described, and much that is not clear can
still be deduced.
> We can
> infer that the OT, mostly written in the 6th and 5th century BCE,
Older material is also incorporated.
> attempts a reconciliation of the northern and southern set of beliefs
> and thus the dublications and the two different names for the main
> deity. What of it?
What two different names?
> > Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
>
> No modern groups share the identical gene pool as their ancient
> counterparts. As in most nations and ethnic groups, it is culture that
> defines them rather than genes
Yes. In case of modern Judaism, the rapid expansion of their original
communities in the hellenistic era are easiest explained by the
assimilation of local peoples. At first those populations that already
had Semitic (but not necessarily 'Israelite') background, like the
asiatic populations who long since inhabited Egypt.
For the genetic connection one would rather compare to indigenous
Palestinians.
> > > but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
> > > covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
> > > becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
> >
> > Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
>
> The northern kingdom of Israel ends then but the very admission of the
> OT itself. So what??? It is not that you are telling us anything new
> here. The OT includes this information quite clearly.
"So what?"?? That Israel ended many centuries earlier as Tiglath
presents it.
--
Boycott American products
Tiglath
I dispute your belief that the inscription cannot be interpreted as
referring to Israel, which you insist on asserting gratuitously.
Parse, learn, and inwardly digest.
Tiglath
> Tiglath wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:26 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> >>> We have an Egyptian encryption dated
> >>> c. 1200 B.C. mentioning Israel.
> >> No we don't.
>
> > People like you, who cultivate ignorance as if it were a rare species
> > of flower, don't belong in history groups.
>
> > Look at page 73 here:
>
>
> Some chapter headings, and an assumption by a Christian. Next?
>
The fallacious Ad Hominem argument is taken out for a stroll again.
An argument has merit or lacks it because of itself, not because of
who proposes.
Donald B. Bedford who is never shy to denounce the errancy,
exaggeration, and sheer fabrications of the bible, and those who
practiced archeology bible in hand like W.E. Albright, seems to have
no problem accepting that the stele refers to Israel.
'No one can prove or disprove for that matter that the tribal
federation "Israel" originate on Palestinian soil. No one can prove
that the major components of that federation had always existed on
Palestinian soil. All that is known for certain is that, some time
during the fourth quarter of the thirteenth century B.C., Egypt knew
of a group, or political entity, called "Israel" and occupying part of
the land of Canaan.'
-- Bedford, D.B., 1992, "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times,
p. 266, Princeton.
Here is the raw data:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0631184295.html
Tom P
> Tom P wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>>> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
>>> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
>>> civilizations.
>>> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical
>>> Israel.
>>> Egypt Finkelstein is wrong.
>
>> Endlessly repeating lies will not make them into truth, Giwer.
>
>> There is only one set of facts, Giwer. And those facts are not
>> subject to falsification. The facts and physical evidence disprove
>> you bogus kook theories.
>
>> The evidence is there. It really exists.
>
> It is difficult do see why you keep trying to offer illiterate
> barbarians without political unity as biblical Israel.
>
> You clowns claim to have evidence of biblical Israel.
You lie, Giwer. I have never made such a claim for a "biblical Israel."
Quote me, Giwer.
Read what I wrote again. Read what is on the page, not what your
prejudices want to believe are on the page.
You see, Giwer. I don't believe any modern bible is an historical
source. I do believe a case can be made that certain historical events
occurred as recorded in the manuscripts from Antiquity that were much
later assembled into the Christian bible. Or is that too subtle for the
master of Giwerian Gobbledygook?
> Yet when we
> rationally expect to see evidence commensurate with the bible's
> description of Israel you have a few potsherds and small farming
> villages. How do you expect to pass that off as evidence of biblical
> Israel to people who are not as desperate as you to believe?
>
And you think your sillyass argument that the absence of ruins on the
scale of Athens and Thebes proves that no kingdom ever existed in
Palestine from 1,000 BCE to Herod the Great?
By the way, Thebes, Giwer? Egypt or Greece? Some rather famous Attic
drama's are set in Thebes, and there exist some rather magnificent ruins
there also. You may have even heard of them, Giwer. Were you not aware
of the existence of two rather well known cities named Thebes in the
ancient world, Giwer?
Your argument this time is asinine, even for you Giwer.
Matthias M. Giwer
> On Oct 15, 4:59 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> ADR wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 2:49 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom P wrote:
>>>>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>>>> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
>>>> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
>>>> civilizations.
>>> Do not make me laugh.
>> As you lack a sense of irony that is most certainly an impossibility.
I note the lack of a sense of irony.
>>> If we actually follow your line of reasoning, the Myceneans never
>>> existed either.
>> Which only indicates you are not familiar with the evidence for
>> that culture. What has been found does in fact match the surviving
>> descriptions of that culture. That is the point. What is found has to
>> match the surviving descriptions. Call it the Troy rule as it applies to
>> Ilium.
> What are the surviving descriptions of Mycenean Greeks??? I am not aware
> of any contemporary source describing the Myceneans.
It is not unsurprising you are unfamiliar with the works attributed
to Homer. Perhaps it is your allergy to the Ilium rule for connecting
archaeological finds to written descriptions.
>>> And I have a clue for you: you do not get to decide what is evidence or
>>> not.
>> Do not you believers claim the same right? The right to assert a
>> group of illiterate savages ruled from Egypt to the Euphrates?
> Here you go again (and again and again). Because we object to your
> utterings, does it mean that we believe biblical assertions about the
> extent of the power of a unified dynasty?
Without the bible you believers have no basis for any objection.
Without the fantasy fiction you have no "unified dynasty" at all.
But you are willing to "compromise" on its extent to salvage a
belief in its existence. Oh, ye of desperate faith ,,,
You might as well say you are willing to compromise on the exact
size of the Land of Oz so you can still get your rocks off on Dorthy and the
lesbian witches.
But you know that.
> Where did I say anything that led you to this conclusion??? I actually
> said the opposite.
When have you ever identified one single archaeological find in
bibleland and used that to describe some aspect of the civilization which
lived in the region at the time? The answer is never. A civilization can
only be described from its artifacts. No matter when the fantasy fiction was
written it cannot be taken as a literary artifact because of its intrinsic
nature as fantasy fiction.
> It is you who are out there with outrageous assertions that everything in
> the Bible is a fabrication put together in Hellenistic times.
Why would you find a mere two centuries later outrageous.
What is outrageous in connecting the creation of these fantasies
with the Greeks who brought not only learning and literacy but a tradition
of inventing god stories? Granted the style is poorly imitated and clumsy in
its interpretation.
Is your outrage like that of Molly Yard? [For Brits, a feminist
whose catch phrase in every speech was "I am outraged!" She was notable in
actually being able to get red in the face while saying it.]
>> As you can see from the interview, he is being misrepresented by you
>> desperate believers.
> He is much more distorted by you.
So far as I remember I referenced him for exactly one statement and
that as an example of how not to upset the believers yet do no damage to
one's professional position. (if he existed he was no more than)
That my "distortion" of him has grown in the retelling to everything
under the sun when I used only that one thing is the fantasy of others.
Mostly it is that TomP character who appears congenitally incabable of
understanding the concept of evidence. Perhaps an oddly expressed Asperger's
Syndrome. Who knows.
> Even if we assume that the kingdom of Solomon was mostly a ficion of later
> times,
If we make that assumption then there was no biblical Israel and we
are all in agreement.
> Finkelstein has actually unearthed a lot of information about the
> successor kingdoms.
If you wish to discuss those successor kingdoms without any
reference to fantasy fiction then for the *first* *time* you will ON TOPIC
in these newsgroups. If you wish to talk about them in the context of
fantasy fiction then you should do so in an appropriate religion newsgroup.
If on the third claw you wish to make a case that the exaggeration
decreased at some point in time, while still retaining the elements of
fantasy fiction, then you are certainly free to make that case but again in
a religion newsgroup where bible discussions are appropriate.
> He also does not question the existence of a state of Israel in the 12th
> century BCE, just its idealistic portrayal in the Bible. So, chill.
As in the interview I posted he says he has no idea what 12th c. BC
"israel" means in response to a question on the Egyptian inscription. So I
ask you what information you have that he does not have which allows you to
know what he does not. I further ask why you would misrepresent him while
claiming I have used him as an authoritative source which I have not.
I used Finkelstein solely for his phrasing of one statement. You
folks deliberately misrepresent him over and over and pretend nothing amiss.
Can you not do better than that?
--
A real American only needs one finger while an Englishman requires two.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4176
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Fri Oct 16 16:00:21 EDT 2009
Tom P
> Tom P <th_om_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Because young
>
> I know your brain doesn't work very well (or at
> all), but try to keep up.
>
> You mistakenly believe that Finkelstein establishes.... what?
>
Read his books, young JTEM the nincompoop. Then you will know.
> And why do you mistakenly believe this?
>
> Even if he wasn't super controversial, your waving him about
> he was some sort of final authority wouldn't make sense.
>
So now Finkelstein has evolved from "contraversial"[sic] to "super
controversial" and in less than 24 hours too. Wow! Young JTEM the
nincompoop, what did Finkelstein say or do during the past few hours to
rate such a change in status?
>
>
Why don't you try to deal with the issues you deleted?
I restored it here below.
> Finkelstein and Silberman are coonsidered very contraversial.
>
They're "coonsidered"[sic] are they, young JTEM the nincompoop?
And they are "contraversial"[sic] too, eh young JTEM the nincompoop?
Getting a bit too emotionally involved, young JTEM the nincompoop?
Rage really isn't a good thing. But Homer did compose a rather good epic
about rage. But the rage of young JTEM the nincompoop which causes him
to misspell words doesn't quite have the force of "Rage -- Goddess sing
of the rage of the son of Peleus, Achilles, murderous, doomed . . ."
So you are dodging and weaving again I see. Have you ever read any of
their books or articles?
If so, which one(s)?
Those are simple questions, young JTEM the nincompoop. The answer is
screamingly obvious.
> Nobody considers them the final word.
>
I never claimed they were the final word. I do claim they are qualified
to render an opinion. You, young JTEM the nincompoop, are not.
> And although Finkelstein correctly focuses on the real archaeological
> evidence and concludes that the biblical stories are all a bunch of
> horse shit, he then throws away his credibility by trying to shoehorn
> in an Israel, more or less rationalizing.
>
Because young JTEM the notorious nincompoop who has never read any of
the publications of Finkelstein or Silberman says so?
Your opinion is worthless, young JTEM.
You really should read from page 99 to 105 concerning the evidence for
the beginnings of a "full blown state" in Judah. Then you should read
Chapter 4, titled "Temple and Dynasty." I can name several other
passages from "David and Solomon" that utterly disprove you contention
that "Finkelstein . . . concludes that the biblical stories are all a
bunch of horse shit . . ." but these two will do for a start.
You are lying, young JTEM the nincompoop. And it is screamingly obvious
that you are lying. All of your information about Finkelstein and
Silberman is from various web pages. None of your information is from
sources Finkelstein and Silberman actually wrote.
> He identifies the Pagan cities to the north of Judea as "Israel"
> simply because his worldview demands that there be an Israel. The
> rest of the planet considers these people Phoneticians -- some even
> call them "Canaanites".
>
He does, does he? On which specific pages of which specific book did
Finkelstein and Silberman write such things, young JTEM?
And the dozens of ostraca inscribed in Hebrew and other physical
evidence from Samaria had nothing to do with it, right, young JTEM?
You see, young JTEM the nincompoop, the authors based their theory on
the archaeological evidence, the physical evidence. If you had read
their books, you would know that and could discuss specific bits of
evidence as described on specific pages. Alas, young JTEM the
nincompoop neglected to read the books he tries to discuss.
> Anyhow, the cite told you everything you need to know, you deranged
> freak. Try reading it this time:
>
> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
>
I did read it. Don't you wish you had, young JTEM?
What say we restore your snip here. Your readers should see how you
fled from truth.
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: They concluded that the biblical
>> stories were all a bunch of cow patties, and then they tried to
>> slap the "Israel" label on the Pagan states to the north, in
>> Lebanon & Syria.
>>
> Tom P replied, asking: Oh really, young JTEM?
>
> On what page of which book did they draw such conclusions?
>
> Be precise, young JTEM. You made the allegation, now it is your duty
> to prove your allegation using sources. That is easy in this case
> because Finkelstein and Silberman only co-wrote two books. I just
> happen to have copies of both books co-authored by Finkelstein and
> Silberman on my shelves so I can quickly know whether your quotations
> are accurate.
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: You know, like Ugarit.
>>
> Tom P replied: No, actually, I don't know. Please, do enlighten me.
>
>>> Tom P wrote: These two guys have even written some books and a
whole bunch of articles describing their evidence.
>>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote: You're full of shit.
>>
> Come, come young JTEM. Surely you know that Finkelstein and
> Silberman co-authored two books concerning the historicity of the
> Jewish scriptures and both individually have a long list of
> publications elsewhere.
>
>>> Tom P wrote:
>>> So have thousands of other historians and archaeologists.
>>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop replied:
>> Liar. Finkelstein & Silberman are considered quite controversial.
>>
> Tom P replied, asking?
> How does that controversy negate my proposition that "thousands of
> other historians and archaeologists" have written books and other
> articles describing the evidence of a Judean people writing in Hebrew
> in the Judean highlands?
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote:
>> http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm
>>
>> Oh, look, a cite!
>>
> Tom P replied, asking:
> Did you bother to read your "cite" before you posted it?
>
>> Young JTEM the nincompoop wrote:
>> See how that works, shit for brains?
>>
Tom P replied asking:
> Is this quotation from your "cite" an example of how "They
> [Finkelstein and Silberman] concluded that the biblical stories were
> all a bunch of cow patties"?
>
> Interviewer: So are you saying that the United Monarchy is a lie?
>
> Finkelstein: "I don' [sic] believe in lies in history. Spin, yes;
> lies, no. What I am saying is that if in the seventh century BCE a
> strong tradition existed in Jerusalem that the temple on the hill had
> been built by the founders of the dynasty, I see no reason to
> question that. That doesn't mean it was a huge and magnificent
> building. On the question of the grandeur of the United Monarchy I
> find myself in a tough scholarly confrontation: there is still a
> debate over the archaeological remnants. Two magnificent palaces were
> found at Megiddo. [The noted archaeologist] Yigael Yadin said they
> were from the 10th century BCE, the period of Solomon, and could
> support the account of the great monarchy, whereas I think they are
> from the ninth century BCE, 70 years later, from the period of the
> northern kingdom."
>
> Your "cite" also contains this quotation from Finkelstein: "There is
> a stela in a Cairo museum on which the word Israel first appears in
> written form. The son of Ramesses [sic] II launched a military
> expedition to Caanan [sic] and conquered Ashkelon and Gezer, and
> wrote the famous sentence, `Israel is spoiled, his seed is not.' That
> was in 1207 BCE - after the conquest as related in the Bible."
>
> And then there is this: "According to the archaeological findings,
> the Israelites came from the local stock: they were actually
> Canaanites who became Israelites in a socio-economic process." Who
> was the ninny that made these demands: "If "Hebrew" appears in 800
> BC, that means these Hebrew people also appeared at that time. So
> tell us where they came from already, and what happened to the people
> who were there before them."
>
> "Map it out for us. "
>
> Well, those words were posted by the ninny young JTEM in the thread
> "When Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers."
>
> Finkelstein and Silberman seem to have already mapped it out for us,
> young JTEM. As you would know if you had read their books. I see no
> reason to dispute their assessment. Do you, young JTEM?
>
> So Finkelstein and Silberman argue chronology, not existence.
> Finkelstein and Silberman argue extant of lands and peoples conquered
> and ruled, not existence. You should know the difference, young
> JTEM, albeit you are in despicable company. Giwer argues the same
> mistaken notions you do, JTEM. Finkelstein and Silberman used the
> Hebrew inscriptions on ostraca as evidence to establish their revised
> chronology, which is one factor that generated the controversy. Of
> course, if one actually reads the books by Finkelstein and Silberman
> as opposed to an interview in an on-line English language edition of
> an Israeli newspaper, one would know that. Wouldn't one, young JTEM?
>
>
> The difference between our perspectives concerning the published work
> of Finkelstein and Silberman is that I have actually closely read
> their books. You, young JTEM, obviously have not.
>
> Which leads to this screamingly obvious question, young JTEM. Why
> are do you comment on books you have never read?
>
> See how that works, shit for brains?
Addendum:
Young JTEM the nincompoop doesn't seem to have answers for those
questions. So he deletes them, calls everyone else a liar, and runs away.
Why don't the rest of you atheists drop the hammer on young JTEM the
nincompoop. Young JTEM the nincompoop should be an embarrassment to the
rest of you.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
>
> > To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
> > land, existed during biblical time
>
> <snip>
>
> Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
More semantic obfuscation, for those who insist every issue to be
black and white.
"ISRAEL" has many different meanings, which though related deserve
qualification before making sweeping statements using the word.
Israel was a confederation of tribes, and in antiquity the same word
refers to the land of the Jewish people and to one of the kingdoms
therein.
The Kingdom of Judah was a kingdom of Israel in the broader meaning of
the word.
It's the responsibility of those making assertions about Israel to
clarify what they mean.
No hair-splitting, however, can do any harm to the fact that, those
who claim that biblical Israel never existed are dead wrong, for both
Israel as Jewish nation, and Israel as a kingdom within it, existed
during biblical times.
> The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
So many readers will delight at the news...
> Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
And at the same level of relevance to the question of whether biblical
Israel existed, I must say that the New Zealand wombat eats an average
of 12.8 pounds of grass per day.
> > but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
> > covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
> > becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
>
> Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
I guess that the coins from Roman Judea imprinted "Shekel of Israel"
in c. 60 A.D. came from Mars.
Israel self-rule ended in the 8th century B.C. Learn the difference.
It resume later under the Hasmonean Dynasty for 103 years (which ruled
over the former Kingdom of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Judah),
and under the Herodian Dynasty, a client of Rome, which lasted some
130 years.
Tiglath
> > > The ancient Egyptians had no letter 'L', so right
> > > there you know they couldn't have written "Israel."
> > All that argument does is
>
> ....completely refute the jackasses who
> keep insisting that the stele literally reads "Israel"
> and that it's not just an interpretation.
>
> Jackass.
No need to sign your posts. Readers may not know who you are but we
know what you are.
Brian M. Scott
<th_om...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:4ad8e09f$0$1613$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com> in
soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
[...]
> Why don't the rest of you atheists drop the hammer on
> young JTEM the nincompoop. Young JTEM the nincompoop
> should be an embarrassment to the rest of you.
Nonsense. That would require taking the unpleasant little
twit seriously, which is absurd.
Tiglath
>
> Well, Matt and JTEM ...
> We have learned that they are willing to
> disregard all evidence presented and keep pressing their point,
> irrespective of how many times it has been proven erroneous.
ADR runs again the risk of being buried under an avalanche of kettles
and pots.
Matthias M. Giwer
It is always amusing to find such references in defense of a group
which practices ritual genital mutilation as a means of worshiping their
god. Yahweh is pleased by every little snip.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Fri Oct 16 17:21:27 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
> On Oct 16, 7:51 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>>> Another thread goes down the tubes because
>>
>> Besides misattributing claims & embarking on extensive though far from
>> original ad hominem, do you have any other tricks?
>>
>> For instance, are you capable of constructing an actual case for your
>> retarded position. This stele which you agree does not mention "Israel"
>> should be interpreted as mention Israel because.... ???
>>
>> Do go on, shit for brains.
>
> The case for the Stela mentioning Israel has been properly made since it's
> discovery. Philologists agree that it is the only interpretation that has
> merit.
Now unnamed "philologists" are invoked. The desperation knows no
bounds.
> Again, what rebuttal do you have worth reading other than mindless denials
> and insults?
Perhaps that Finkelstein says he has no idea what Israel could mean
in that century. What evidence do you have that he does not? Where did you
find it? Will you tell us what it is?
> You must think that denying the historical consensus is all it takes to
> rebut it, but then you would.
Where was this census taken? Which historians were polled? What was
the exact wording of the question? Where are the results published? When did
history become a matter of consensus?
When did you get the idea you could post claims like that and be
taken seriously?
> Just because you continue to be here unharmed despite your moronic
> babbling, it doesn't mean that you are invited or that your ideas make any
> progress persuading anyone.
It is you biblethumpers who are the constant nuisance here.
> Learn that important difference.
Learn this is for the discussion of history and archaeology not the
bible.
--
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/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Fri Oct 16 16:55:28 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
> Your hate is best directed to whoever brought you up, moron.
> We have to deal yet with another bad-mannered victim of a bad education.
> To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or land,
> existed during biblical time is something that even the most rabid
> anti-Zionist would not do, if they had an ounce of sanity left in him.
This desperate attempt to salvage a belief in a genocidal, genital
mutilating people is not what an educated person would do.
BTW: Anti-zionism is a moral imperative.
You make a serious mistake introducing that genocidal political
philosophy.
> I understand being skeptical of historical claims made in the bible, but
> to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that covers
> more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel becoming Roman
> Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
The only point of interest is when this religion appeared in its
current form. So far as anyone can tell from real history, not your fantasy
fiction, it started in the 2nd or 3rd c. BC as a religion actively SEEKING
CONVERTS and was never taken as anything but a religion back then. It is
nothing more than a religion today.
All the people and nation crap comes from the invented fantasy
fiction you are trying to salvage. It exists no place else. All this special
consideration you want to give to this religion is absolute nonsense.
Religions undergo extinction events. No one gives a shit.
> His lizard brain replete with hate for the Jews overpowers this goober's
> weak intellect in a most curious manner. It even deprives him of his
> sense of ridicule and forth he sallies with the most preposterous
> statements.
Trying to salvage a Yahweh cult as something special is the task of
an idiot. No one should want to be a part of genital mutilation and
genocide. No one should support the existence of such a religion for it
teachings of genocide. Consider the recent massacre in Gaza as the
consequences of the existence of this religion.
> Again, to state not only in public but in a history group that there never
> existed a Jewish nation in the span of time covered in the bible is such a
> gigantic falsehood that anyone who supports it even remotely deserves to
> be shunned until he agrees to cease and desist.
It is you silly bible thumpers who should be banned for promoting a
genocidal religion.
> But I appreciate your entertainment value and so kindly volunteering to be
> the group buffoon, for the Reader's amusement.
It is a blood libel on Jews to say their OT mythology is true. You
must hate them so. Who are the inventors of genocide to whine when it is
their turn in the box?
I know. Only the good parts are true.
--
Hodie postridie Idus Novembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Fri Oct 16 17:02:59 EDT 2009
Tiglath
>
> Please stop calling me "Lord."
>
> > No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>
> other idiots __ARE__ claiming that the Merneptah
> stele mentions Israel.
>
> Seriously, are you really THAT stupid?
What part of "mentioning" is that you don't understand?
Only a mental pygmy like you would suggest that nobody can mention
Israel unless it's spelled: "I-s-r-a-e-l"
Have you not heard yet that the name of cities and states are can be
spelled different in different languages and periods? And mentioning
any of those various names IS mentioning the same place?
I would feel sorry for your parents if they apologized to the human
race for having a son like you, blockhead.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Lord have mercy...
>
> Please stop calling me "Lord."
>
I can't. I never started.
But I'd like to call you "bonehead" if you don't mind.
Tiglath
>
> Get a clue. It's not about me, shit head, it's about facts, facts
> you can verify for yourself.
>
> The ancient Egyptians had no letter 'L', so right there you know
> they couldn't have written "Israel."
>
Bonehead is rebutting an argument of his own invention. He disagrees
with whoever said that the Egyptians WROTE "Israel" on their victory
stela.
Bonehead thinks it's me.
When I, CLEARLY, said that they mentioned Israel -- obviously in their
language, which was not based on our alphabet.
Duh!
>
> Secondly, that second mouth sign has a literal mark. So whoever
> wrote it is telling you to read it literally as 'R' (or 'Ro'), and yet
> you're claiming it should be read as an 'L' sound.
>
> In short: Some people interpret a word on the Merneptah stele
> as Israel.
>
> Why?
You don't seem to know, and refuse to learn.
> All these are facts which you can easily verify yourself. Stop
> being a shit head and go verify it.
Stupid and lazy too. Now I have to "go verify" whatever is that
supports your argument. Isn't it rather YOUR responsibility to
support your own argument right here and present the evidence yourself
rather than send readers on an expedition to "go verify'?
Stupid and lazy. Nice personality.
Tiglath
>
> Besides misattributing claims & embarking on
> extensive though far from original ad hominem,
> do you have any other tricks?
No tricks, I return insults together with evidence and references that
show you are dead wrong.
On the other hand you only have plebeian invective to fill your posts
with, instead of the evidence you are obliged to provide before anyone
will share your ideas.
ADR
> > What are the surviving descriptions of Mycenean Greeks??? I am not aware
> > of any contemporary source describing the Myceneans.
>
> It is not unsurprising you are unfamiliar with the works attributed
> to Homer. Perhaps it is your allergy to the Ilium rule for connecting
> archaeological finds to written descriptions.
****You say these things and you become a laughing stock*****. No
wonder. It is the first time that I hear that Homer was a Mycenean
Greek. In fact, he composed his poems about 350- 400 years after the
disappearance of the Mycenean world, in Heroic Age Greece. In fact,
until the excavations by Schlieman, all historians were convinced that
his tales were just pure fiction. Now, we know that they contain some
historical elements. Homer, although he had some information, mostly
oral, of the Mycenean world, he just could not make much sense of it.
So, he had no comprehension of chariot warfare (chariots in his poems
are only taxis to the battlefield). His poems are full of
anachronisms as he interjected a lot of "contemporary" information to
a Mycenean setting. So, Homer is out, think of something else.
> >> Do not you believers claim the same right? The right to assert a
> >> group of illiterate savages ruled from Egypt to the Euphrates?
> > Here you go again (and again and again). Because we object to your
> > utterings, does it mean that we believe biblical assertions about the
> > extent of the power of a unified dynasty?
>
> Without the bible you believers have no basis for any objection.
There are many other sources of information: archaeological finds in
Palestine, epigraphical and textual evidence from Egyptian, Babylonian
and Assyrian sites.
And let me give you an example of illiterate savages that ruled a much
larger space and left absolutely no archaeological evidence: the
Huns. If we did not have contemporary historical evidence from Greek
and Latin historians, how much would we have been able to deduce about
the Huns??? Nothing! But they did run a very extensive state in
central Europe for 100 years (just about the length of time of the
unified monarchy of Israel). They build with perishable material and
no archaeological finds of any extent has been unearthed. Does this
mean that the Huns did not exist and they were the figment of the
imagination of the then historians???? In fact, it is easy to conjure
a scenario in which a tribal leader emerges in the Palestinians hllis,
he forces the coastal cities to pay tribute just not to have to deal
with this nuisance, and he also expands his overlordship to the tribes
beyond the Jordan. This actually was supposed to have happened at a
period of Egyptian retrenchment during the 21st dyanasty. Such a
tribal leader (let's call him a king), could (and most likely did)
have build some timber halls and palaces, none of which survived for a
long time. It is questionable if the highlanders there had the
capability of building large stone buildings.
This scenario is not really peculiar, it is more than likely. It is
in agreement with what we know about pre-dynastic Egypt (which,
according to your yardstick, never happened). For hundreds of years,
pre-dynastic Egypt possessed large cities and powerful kings (the
Scorpion king of legend being one of them). Modern archaeology is
just now establishing the main population areas, cities and rulers of
pre-dynastic Egypt. Guess what? Escavations have revealed that most
"palaces" and temples were built with timber. Writing was rudimentary
or non-existent. But for hundreds of years, large states existed with
populous cities fighting among each other until Namur united Egypt.
But, according to you, 1000 years of Egyptian history should not count
at all.
> Without the fantasy fiction you have no "unified dynasty" at all.
>
> But you are willing to "compromise" on its extent to salvage a
> belief in its existence. Oh, ye of desperate faith ,,,
Faith? When does faith enter into it? As the OT provides more or
less reliable information about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, it
is not that much of a stretch to imply a unified kingdom prior to
this. But one does not have believe in the riches of Solomon and
other tales. If you dismiss this information without cause, then you
should dismiss all the information on Mycenean Greece save what little
exists in the Hittite archives.
> > Where did I say anything that led you to this conclusion??? I actually
> > said the opposite.
>
> When have you ever identified one single archaeological find in
> bibleland and used that to describe some aspect of the civilization which
> lived in the region at the time? The answer is never. A civilization can
> only be described from its artifacts. No matter when the fantasy fiction was
> written it cannot be taken as a literary artifact because of its intrinsic
> nature as fantasy fiction.
Are you kidding? There is tones of archaeology in the "bibleland".
And what period are you referring to?
In any case, if you follow your last sentence, it seems that you have
determined that the OT is fantasy fiction and thus fully dismissable.
And this, despite the fact that many persons and historical characters
have been shown to exist through archaeological and contextual
information. If a source is partially verified in certain areas, I
would tend to give it some credence, rather than not. And it seems
that the OT gets the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel
mostly right. Even if we did not have the OT, we would have known
that the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and that its
population was deported. And even without the OT, we would have known
from Babylonian tablets that Babylon captured Judah and its king and
his family existed in captivity in Babylon itself. You do not need
the OT to establish these facts. It is certainly fine that the OT
verifies archaeological information.
> > It is you who are out there with outrageous assertions that everything in
> > the Bible is a fabrication put together in Hellenistic times.
>
> Why would you find a mere two centuries later outrageous.
I find your whole reasoning outrageous. Nobody here claimed that the
Bible represents literal truth. It is definitely mythical at parts,
as are the ethnogenesis tales of all nations, when one gets down to
it.
> What is outrageous in connecting the creation of these fantasies
> with the Greeks who brought not only learning and literacy but a tradition
> of inventing god stories? Granted the style is poorly imitated and clumsy in
> its interpretation.
You apparently have not read Hesiod.
> That my "distortion" of him has grown in the retelling to everything
> under the sun when I used only that one thing is the fantasy of others.
> Mostly it is that TomP character who appears congenitally incabable of
> understanding the concept of evidence. Perhaps an oddly expressed Asperger's
> Syndrome. Who knows.
Well, it is ***you*** who does not understand the concept of
evidence. Everybody else has about right.
> > Even if we assume that the kingdom of Solomon was mostly a fiction of later
> > times,
>
> If we make that assumption then there was no biblical Israel and we
> are all in agreement.
Hmmmm....I do not know how one follows the other. If the details of
Solomon's rule are over-exaggerated, why does this invalidate
everything??? On this basis, he should throw Herodotus to the fire
pit.
Matthias M. Giwer
> On Oct 16, 2:15 pm, Italo <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
>>> To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
>>> land, existed during biblical time
>> <snip>
>> Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
> More semantic obfuscation, for those who insist every issue to be
> black and white.
> "ISRAEL" has many different meanings, which though related deserve
> qualification before making sweeping statements using the word.
What those not apologizing for the OT in hopes of salvaging belief
in it is that it has no consistent meaning or usage. It is a generic term
like BYT/BT whose meaning is wholly determined by what it relates to. That
means it cannot be used alone in English translation but must always be in
relation to the related word. BYT SLM can be translated by a single word
palace and BYT YHWH can be translated with a single word temple. Another
example is BYTLHM as Bethlehem or BYTDWD as Bethdwd or however the place was
spelled if it still existed. The failure to provide the contexts for Israel
in English is what leads believers to treat it as some sort of all
encompassing term.
The bottom line of that is the word Israel cannot be translated as
Israel. As with BYT it must be translated as what it means in context as
above with temple or palace.
> Israel was a confederation of tribes,
Meaning the failure to translate israel as confederation has you all
in a fluster.
> and in antiquity the same word refers to the land of the Jewish people
Meaning the failure to translate israel into an appropriate term
meaning land has you gaga.
> and to one of the kingdoms therein.
Meaning you still believe without evidence there was such a kingdom
simply because an anthology of fantasy fiction uses it in the manner of
Camelot in later stories.
> The Kingdom of Judah was a kingdom of Israel in the broader meaning of
> the word.
Because of failure to translate it in other places you feel you can
further compound the failure by inventing what is to be found no place but
in your pea brain.
> It's the responsibility of those making assertions about Israel to
> clarify what they mean.
It is perfectly clear the kingdom does not differ from Camelot or
Atlantis to those who are not terminally bewildered.
> No hair-splitting, however, can do any harm to the fact that, those
> who claim that biblical Israel never existed are dead wrong, for both
> Israel as Jewish nation, and Israel as a kingdom within it, existed
> during biblical times.
Dead wrong because YOU SAY SO. Dead wrong because it contradicts
your faith in nonsense.
>> The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
> So many readers will delight at the news...
From the inscriptions we know there is no mention of Yahweh without
a mention of Ashara. The religion was the worship of Yahweh and Ashara. The
worship of only Yahweh, which is only one aspect of Judaism, is found only
after the anthology appears and then it is clearly not universal. Not
universal because NO ONE mentions the strangest people in all the world, a
people with only one god.
>> Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
> And at the same level of relevance to the question of whether biblical
> Israel existed, I must say that the New Zealand wombat eats an average
> of 12.8 pounds of grass per day.
Modern Palestinians including the refugees are the descendants of
historical Judea.
>>> but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
>>> covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
>>> becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
>> Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
> I guess that the coins from Roman Judea imprinted "Shekel of Israel"
> in c. 60 A.D. came from Mars.
The myth of Israel was created perhaps as far back as the 3rd c. BC.
It was the cult of the ruling families. It is hardly surprising they would
use the name used by their cult.
> Israel self-rule ended in the 8th century B.C. Learn the difference.
Even though there is no evidence it ever existed you know when it
ended. Even though we know its name was Palestine not Phlilistia and was
part of Syria.
> It resume later under the Hasmonean Dynasty for 103 years (which ruled
> over the former Kingdom of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Judah),
They never claimed to rule Israel but you know they ruled Syria.
> and under the Herodian Dynasty, a client of Rome, which lasted some
> 130 years.
Which is the only time Judea is known to have existed. After which
its name reverted to Palestine as it was known before Roman times as found
in the writing of Herodotus.
--
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.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Fri Oct 16 18:15:04 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Tom P wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Tom P wrote:
>>>>> How strange. An archaeologist named Israel Finkelstein
>>>> If there were physical evidence of biblical Israel it would be as I
>>>> described. It would be comparable to the evidence for other ancient
>>>> civilizations.
>>>> The evidence is not comparable. Therefore there was no biblical
>>>> Israel. Because the evidence is not comparable to that of Greece,
>>>> Rome and Egypt Finkelstein is wrong.
>>> Endlessly repeating lies will not make them into truth, Giwer.
>>> There is only one set of facts, Giwer. And those facts are not subject
>>> to falsification. The facts and physical evidence disprove you bogus
>>> kook theories.
>>> The evidence is there. It really exists.
>> It is difficult do see why you keep trying to offer illiterate
>> barbarians without political unity as biblical Israel.
>> You clowns claim to have evidence of biblical Israel.
> You lie, Giwer. I have never made such a claim for a "biblical Israel."
> Quote me, Giwer.
Everyone lies when it comes to you believers. I simply observe you
want this fantasy fiction to have been written by a culture with minimal
signs of literacy as indicated by the dearth of contractual and
administrative writings. You believers are only a touch cautious in avoiding
an open expression of your belief in the OT because it is the OT and for no
other reason.
> Read what I wrote again. Read what is on the page, not what your
> prejudices want to believe are on the page.
> You see, Giwer. I don't believe any modern bible is an historical source.
Then we are in complete agreement. Why do you continue to post
against evidence that it is not?
> I do believe a case can be made
Why do you not make that case without reference to it? Because you
can only "make" that case by arguing to a conclusion.
> that certain historical events occurred as recorded in the manuscripts
You do not attempt to establish that without circular reasoning.
> from Antiquity that were much later assembled into the Christian bible.
> Or is that too subtle for the master of Giwerian Gobbledygook?
When you in fact do what you say without circular reasoning then I
might consider taking you seriously. Until then, not a chance.
>> Yet when we rationally expect to see evidence commensurate with the
>> bible's description of Israel you have a few potsherds and small farming
>> villages. How do you expect to pass that off as evidence of biblical
>> Israel to people who are not as desperate as you to believe?
> And you think your sillyass argument that the absence of ruins on the
> scale of Athens and Thebes proves that no kingdom ever existed in
> Palestine from 1,000 BCE to Herod the Great?
I think only that we have a very good idea of the type and magnitude
of archaeological evidence which different levels of civilization leave. In
fact that is the measure. Therefore there are reasonable expectations of
what must be found if the stories are true.
One obvious thing is other writings. Pick any time you want for the
creation of these fantasy fictions and show me ten times more civil and
legal writings from that same period.
Another thing we know is the greater the political extent of a
political entity the greater their constructions, the more impressive their
buildings. It is the same today. Produce the ruins of the constructions
which are commensurate with what you believe is a non-fantasy non-fiction
description of a political entity which date from that period.
There are a lot of things you could do not make a case but you make
no attempt to make any case at all.
And if you were to leave out your favorite anthology and stick only
to what has been found then you would be on topic for the first time. Try
it. You might like it.
> By the way, Thebes, Giwer? Egypt or Greece? Some rather famous Attic
> drama's are set in Thebes, and there exist some rather magnificent ruins
> there also. You may have even heard of them, Giwer. Were you not aware
> of the existence of two rather well known cities named Thebes in the
> ancient world, Giwer?
> Your argument this time is asinine, even for you Giwer.
That you are unable to show anything commensurate with the
descriptions in the OT does not invalidate the point.
As I have challenged you believers many times, your job is to
demonstrate the existence of a culture in bibleland which is so well known
that the OT only explains otherwise poorly understood things. Unfortunately
for you it is the other way around. You have stories and you are desperate
to avoid addressing the absence of anything supporting them.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Fri Oct 16 17:29:27 EDT 2009
Matthias M. Giwer
One guy with two spaces after a period posting to an entirely
different person with the same typewriter habit. What a coincidence we are
being flooded by people who have this outdated habit. With luck we can get
them all together and start an american football team, maybe two teams and
have a game.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Fri Oct 16 18:50:07 EDT 2009
Tiglath
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tiglath wrote:
> > > Look at page 73 here:
>
> > >http://books.google.com/books?id=uoAefzqPGAUC&dq=Ancient+Egyptian+Lit...
>
> > Some chapter headings, and an assumption by
> > a Christian. Next?
>
> nobody is claiming to read "Israel" on the stele.
Very little labor is required to debunk the bad dope you are peddling
here and try to pass for information.
Take responsibility for your own words at least.
I respond to what you wrote:
"In short: Some people interpret a word on the Merneptah stele
as Israel. Why? For the perfectly circular reason that they believe
it has to."
That is yet another gratuitous comment not even adorned with a
scintilla of evidence or reference making it worth the bandwidth it
uses.
The key word in the stela is "ysry·r/l" and it's translated not by
prejudice but by the knowledge we possess of Egyptian orthography and
parallels with Semitic languages.
You are obviously oblivious of the philological analyses of the stela
and the various interpretations attempted of that word, and as usual
argue from the asylum of ignorance.
The scholars who don't think it refers to "Israel" are not only few (3
or 4) but also have provided weak alternative arguments.
'Egyptologists have almost exclusively identified the entity ysry·r/l
as Israel based on the syllabic orthography of the name and the wider
context of the final hymnic-poetic unit of the stela. In this
identification, the weight of both philology and contextual
considerations are important.
'The majority of Egyptologists over the years have supported this
interpretation, including Spiegelberg (1896: 23; 1908: 404 n. 5);
Steindorff (1896: 331–33); Breasted (1897: 62–68; 1906: 4:256–59);
Williams (1958: 140); Kitchen (1966a: 63–97; 1966b: 59–60); Wilson
(1969: 378); Licht-heim (1976: 77); Ebach (1978: 205); Hornung (1983:
232); Kaplony-Heckel (1985: 552); Goedicke (1985: 273–78); Yurco
(1986: 189–215; 1990: 20–38); Murnane (1992: 348–53); Redford (1986:
188–200; 1992b: 700–701); Hoffmeier (1997: 30); Hasel (1994, 1998a:
194–203); Niccacci (1997: 100–107); Yurco (1997: 27–55); Kitchen
(1997: 71–76); Bietak (2000: 184); Görg (2001: 21–27); Rainey (2001:
57–75; 2003: 181); for the most recent discussion, see Hasel (2003a);
Kitchen (2004).
'[...]
'For the sake of brevity, I will simply summarize the evidence that we
do have. The critical distinction of the determinatives indicates that
Israel is a socioethnic entity. The determinative,
a man and woman seated over three strokes indicating the plural, says
nothing concerning whether this people is settled or seminomadic.
Groups that had this designation included those who were sedentary and
those who were not. The interpretation that Israel’s seed was grain,
as Spiegelberg, Steindorff, and Breasted suggested long ago, may
suggest that Israel was agriculturally living off the land and was
enjoying a sedentary lifestyle by 1209 b.c.e. (con-
tra Rainey; see Hasel 2003a: 20–26). Certainly, Israel’s depictions on
the reliefs correspond to portray Israel as a people not tied to a
city-state system (Hasel 2003: 27–37). Despite these distinctions,
Israel remains significant enough to be listed with major walled cities
such as Ashkelon and Gezer, as well as the northern city of Yenoºam.
The current skepticism regarding the nature of Israel and its
connection with later monarchical Israel is not due to the ambigu-
ity of the information contained in the Merenptah stela but may in
fact be the result of the 13th-century date of Merenptah’s campaign
and the apparent lack of archaeological correlates showing this
continuity in the minds of some interpreters.
'[...]
'The tendency of biblical scholars to emphasize that there was no
mention of Israel be-
tween the time of the Merenptah stela and the time of Shalmaneser III
implies that the two en-
tities should not be related. This ignores the problem of surviving
archaeological evidence.
Kitchen points out that, if we look to Assyrian sources for references
to Egypt, we find one at-
testation of Musri from the reign of Assur-bel-kala, ca. 1070 b.c.e.,
then a 220-year gap until sol
diers of Musri are reported by Shalmaneser III in 853 b.c.e., and then
another 130 years pass
before Egypt reappears in the texts of Sargon II (722, 720 b.c.e.). He
concludes, “If we did not
have the massive stone monuments in the Nile Valley (on a scale that
never existed in Israel) we might be justified in asking the same inane
question: are these ‘Musris’ all the same, with a common
history?" (Kitchen 2003b: 115 n. 5).'
-- Michael G. Hasel, M. G., 2008, Critical Issues in
Early Israelite History - Textual Studies -
pp. 49,50, https://www.eisenbrauns.com
Italo
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
> On Oct 16, 2:15 pm, Italo <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
> >
> > > To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
> > > land, existed during biblical time
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
>
> More semantic obfuscation, for those who insist every issue to be
> black and white.
I guessed how you may have meant
"Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or land"
It is your ambiguous wording that confuses the matter.
> "ISRAEL" has many different meanings, which though related deserve
> qualification before making sweeping statements using the word.
>
> Israel was a confederation of tribes, and in antiquity the same word
> refers to the land of the Jewish people and to one of the kingdoms
> therein.
Israel as name for a kingdom refers either to that of Samaria or to the
earlier 'united monarchy' centered at Jerusalem.
> The Kingdom of Judah was a kingdom of Israel in the broader meaning of
> the word.
If you want to make the issue even more opaque, yes.
> It's the responsibility of those making assertions about Israel to
> clarify what they mean.
Such as clarifying your intention with the terms 'Israel' and 'Jewish'
in the first place instead of putting the interpretation with the
reader.
> No hair-splitting, however, can do any harm to the fact that, those
> who claim that biblical Israel never existed are dead wrong, for both
> Israel as Jewish nation, and Israel as a kingdom within it, existed
> during biblical times.
> > The inhabitants of Israel did not have Judaism as religion.
>
> So many readers will delight at the news...
since Judaism as such took shape after the demise of Israel.
> > Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
>
> And at the same level of relevance to the question of whether biblical
> Israel existed, I must say that the New Zealand wombat eats an average
> of 12.8 pounds of grass per day.
It could be relevant since you don't indicate in what sense the
adjective 'Jewish' is meant in your definition of 'biblical Israel'.
> > > but to deny the very existence of a Jewish nation in the period that
> > > covers more than three millennia and ends about the time of Israel
> > > becoming Roman Judea, is nothing short of intellectual suicide.
> >
> > Israel ends in the 8th c. bc.
>
> I guess that the coins from Roman Judea imprinted "Shekel of Israel"
> in c. 60 A.D. came from Mars.
> Israel self-rule ended in the 8th century B.C. Learn the difference.
Yes, Israel (Samaria) was ended, most of its population deported and
the land resettled with various other people.
> It resume later under the Hasmonean Dynasty for 103 years (which ruled
> over the former Kingdom of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Judah),
> and under the Herodian Dynasty, a client of Rome, which lasted some
> 130 years.
The kingdoms of the Maccabees and Herodes are not Israel.
--
Boycott American products
Tiglath
It's usually not worth answering Giwer but I like to do so when there
are signs that he is spending another Friday night in his trailer
hitting Sterno and posting.
>
> > The case for the Stela mentioning Israel has been properly made since it's
> > discovery. Philologists agree that it is the only interpretation that has
> > merit.
>
> Now unnamed "philologists" are invoked. The desperation knows no
> bounds.
>
There are unnamed only for empty vessels like you. Wikipedia has the
name of the philologist who translated the stela first, dozens of
others followed. I have given the names of many today, to flesh out
the magnitude of your ignorance and that of the other poster who
wrote:
"No we don't."
When I told him that we have an Egyptian encryption dated c. 1200
B.C. mentioning Israel.
>
> > You must think that denying the historical consensus is all it takes to
> > rebut it, but then you would.
>
> Where was this census taken?
> Which historians were polled? What was
> the exact wording of the question? Where are the results published? When did
> history become a matter of consensus?
Hilarious. Giwer thinks that "academic consensus" involves taking a
census.
Why can't history groups be more like computer groups where there is
an abundance of regular experts maintaining a high level of
discourse?
I understand that no prominent historians like to frequent unmoderated
groups, but I see no reason for a good number of knowledgeable amateur
historians not post here more often instead of the dregs like Giwer
and the other morons infesting these precints, from whom there is
nothing to learn, and whose ego or bigotry leads every post they eve
make and whose only value is only in the aerobic exercise you get
kicking their asses.
>
> > Just because you continue to be here unharmed despite your moronic
> > babbling, it doesn't mean that you are invited or that your ideas make any
> > progress persuading anyone.
>
> It is you biblethumpers who are the constant nuisance here.
>
Atheists carry their measure of insufferable morons too, as we do with
you. As an atheist, I much do without the likes of you. You are
the equivalent of a biblethumper, only at the other extreme.
Tiglath
>
> > No hair-splitting, however, can do any harm to the fact that, those
> > who claim that biblical Israel never existed are dead wrong, for both
> > Israel as Jewish nation, and Israel as a kingdom within it, existed
> > during biblical times.
>
> Dead wrong because YOU SAY SO. Dead wrong because it contradicts
> your faith in nonsense.
>
Giwer Holocaust denying has obviously been creeping down the
centuries. For a man who finds it a cinch to ignore the massive
evidence for the Holocaust, it must be a cakewalk to disregard
Assyrian and Babylonian sources that attest to the existence of
Israel.
Have another drink Matthias, and don't stop drinking and posting until
you see pink whales.
"There she blows!"
Man you are a fun-guy. A bit of a fun-gus too, around here.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
>
> > On Oct 16, 2:15 pm, Italo <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> schreef:
>
> > > > To deny that Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or
> > > > land, existed during biblical time
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Israel is not synonymous with Judah.
>
> > More semantic obfuscation, for those who insist every issue to be
> > black and white.
>
> I guessed how you may have meant
> "Israel, meaning the Jewish nation, kingdom, country, or land"
> It is your ambiguous wording that confuses the matter.
>
Ambiguous?
What's ambiguous about Jews and Israel when talking about ancient
times?
It's you who are confused and can't seem to think in context. We are
not talking about modern times when anyone can become a Jew by
converting to Judaism.
The context is quite clear: I am referring to the Jewish people of the
Old Testament, blood descendants of the twelve tribes that
confederated around the time of before the date of the Israel stela,
and who remained remarkably homogeneous for centuries resisting all
kind of influences, and staying largely true to their religion and
culture. As I said, their internal political divisions do not make
them a different people for this discussion, so that whether it's the
northern or the southern kingdom of Israel, we are talking about the
same people.
To use their political differences as a red herring only underscores
the poverty of the argument of those who claim that biblical Israel
never existed.
> > "ISRAEL" has many different meanings, which though related deserve
> > qualification before making sweeping statements using the word.
>
> > Israel was a confederation of tribes, and in antiquity the same word
> > refers to the land of the Jewish people and to one of the kingdoms
> > therein.
>
> Israel as name for a kingdom refers either to that of Samaria
You must not know that Samaria was merely a city of the northern
kingdom.
or to the
> earlier 'united monarchy' centered at Jerusalem.
>
>
> > > Modern Jews are not the same people as the ancient inhabitants of Judah.
>
> > And at the same level of relevance to the question of whether biblical
> > Israel existed, I must say that the New Zealand wombat eats an average
> > of 12.8 pounds of grass per day.
>
> It could be relevant since you don't indicate in what sense the
> adjective 'Jewish' is meant in your definition of 'biblical Israel'.
>
If I have to do so, it only means you want to be difficult. The
Jewish people of antiquity are a very well defined ethnic group.
> > It resume later under the Hasmonean Dynasty for 103 years (which ruled
> > over the former Kingdom of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Judah),
> > and under the Herodian Dynasty, a client of Rome, which lasted some
> > 130 years.
>
> The kingdoms of the Maccabees and Herodes are not Israel.
>
The Hasmonean Dynasty is just another name for the same people living
on the same land, later in time. To make out they are not the people
of Israel in the land of Israel is just being insufferably
persnickety.
It's like saying that Iran is not Persia.
Martin Edwards
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:25:42 -0500, Tom P
>> <th_om...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <news:4ad8e09f$0$1613$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com> in
>> soc.history.ancient,sci.archaeology:
>> [...]
>
>>> Why don't the rest of you atheists drop the hammer on young JTEM the
>>> nincompoop. Young JTEM the nincompoop should be an embarrassment to the
>>> rest of you.
>
>> Nonsense. That would require taking the unpleasant little
>> twit seriously, which is absurd.
>
> One guy with two spaces after a period posting to an entirely
> different person with the same typewriter habit. What a coincidence we are
> being flooded by people who have this outdated habit. With luck we can get
> them all together and start an american football team, maybe two teams and
> have a game.
>
--
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
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Tom P wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 14, 7:11 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> You are the ninny who denied the existence of an Egyptian
>>>>>>> stela dated to c. 1200 BCE which mentions Israel.
>>>>>> There's no such thing, shit for brains. The ancient Egyptians
>>>>>> had no letter 'L' for starters, so right there you know they
>>>>>> couldn't have written "Israel."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No ancient Egyptian text has the word "Egypt," either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where are the ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis?
>>>>
>>> Samos, Ephesus, Delos, Kos, Didyma, Miletus, Chlaros, Olympia,
>>> Mycenae, Priene, and that is not an exhaustive list, Giwer. What
>>> point were you trying to make, exactly, Giwer?
>>
>> I believe he was talking about Israel. The point being that if the
>> kingdom of Solomon as described in the Bible existed, there would be
>> some remains comparable to Egypt or at least some of the Mesopotamian
>> civilizations. Cue the Ishtar Gate: "When the children of Israel
>> arrived in Babylon............" Yeah, right.
>>
> Why would anyone expect "ruins comparable to Thebes and the Acropolis"
> in Israel before the 5th century BCE?
>
> There are no ruins in Greece Magna Graece comparable to the Acropolis.
> Although some in Ionia and Magna Graece compare quite favorably.
>
It depends what you mean by "comparable". There are broadly comparable
ruins all over Sicily.