The amazing depth of the Hebrew language fantasy
Matt Giwer
and 6th c. AD. OK, there is an old form of Hebrew so I read up on it. If there
is any statement at all it is that this language is the Roman Judea of the 1st
c. AD. The rest of the world calls the commonly language of Roman Judea in the
1st c. AD Aramaic.
Now this means I have to take a deeper look into the claim that Isaiah among
the DSS is written in Hebrew. Will that also turn out to be Aramaic? Is the sole
criteria for calling something Hebrew the "font" rather than the language itself?
--
Why do we never hear complaints about the National
Socialist Zionist Workers Party?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3983
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Martin Edwards
> I came across a mention of the Mishna being written in Hebrew
> between the 3rd and 6th c. AD. OK, there is an old form of Hebrew so I
> read up on it. If there is any statement at all it is that this language
> is the Roman Judea of the 1st c. AD. The rest of the world calls the
> commonly language of Roman Judea in the 1st c. AD Aramaic.
>
> Now this means I have to take a deeper look into the claim that
> Isaiah among the DSS is written in Hebrew. Will that also turn out to be
> Aramaic? Is the sole criteria for calling something Hebrew the "font"
> rather than the language itself?
>
authors were, refers to himself as an Israelite, a Hebrew or a
Benjaminite, but never a Jew, except where he /"became"/ a "Jew among
Jews". On my own reading, I do not think that "Hebrews" in the Old
Testament refers to the Israelites, though they were probably a
component people. Pharaoh's references to "Evraii" (LXX, modern
pronunciation), could just have meant a reference to "travellers",
assuming for the sake of argument that this conversation took place at
all. There were Hebrews /in/ Saul's army, presumably meaning that it
was not all Hebrews. Examples abound. Translators, from Tyndale
onwards, have muddied the waters. They were not as big a threat as the
Papacy thought.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> I came across a mention of the Mishna being written in Hebrew
>> between the 3rd and 6th c. AD. OK, there is an old form of Hebrew so I
>> read up on it. If there is any statement at all it is that this
>> language is the Roman Judea of the 1st c. AD. The rest of the world
>> calls the commonly language of Roman Judea in the 1st c. AD Aramaic.
>> Now this means I have to take a deeper look into the claim that
>> Isaiah among the DSS is written in Hebrew. Will that also turn out to
>> be Aramaic? Is the sole criteria for calling something Hebrew the
>> "font" rather than the language itself?
> There are wheels within wheels here. St Paul, or whoever the author or
> authors were, refers to himself as an Israelite, a Hebrew or a
> Benjaminite, but never a Jew, except where he /"became"/ a "Jew among
> Jews". On my own reading, I do not think that "Hebrews" in the Old
> Testament refers to the Israelites, though they were probably a
> component people. Pharaoh's references to "Evraii" (LXX, modern
> pronunciation), could just have meant a reference to "travellers",
> assuming for the sake of argument that this conversation took place at
> all. There were Hebrews /in/ Saul's army, presumably meaning that it
> was not all Hebrews. Examples abound. Translators, from Tyndale
> onwards, have muddied the waters. They were not as big a threat as the
> Papacy thought.
A bit of this is where we part company but I was there years ago. At that time
I was joking about a bible disclaimer saying any similarities to events or
persons living or dead is purely coincidental. I was still trying to find a way
to make the OT stories a distortion of actual events. That turned out to be
impossible for any number of reasons.
Once I fully came to terms with zero evidence for the OT the next step was to
eliminate all assumptions and find only the simplest (Occam-style) explanations
IF it was necessary to assume anything at all. Many times there is nothing to
explain as the predicate for the need is not established. Rather than
established it is assumed based upon some aspect of the stories being true.
Paul uses some words whose meanings to him and his audience we have no idea.
But in the case of being a "Jew among Jews" if there is any sense to the
translation at all he said he became a "Judean among Judeans." This could simply
be a reference to his claim to have spent so much time in Judea learning about
the Christ (not Jesus) that he became one of them. The word Judean has come to
have entirely different connotations than it did back then and only being fluent
in the language of the oldest text and the mileau of the times could reveal the
denotation being the same or different or equivocal or indeterminant or the
worse thing of all, idiom or slang understood by the reader but incomprehensible
to us.
Once it is agreed the entire thing is fiction for absence of supporting
physical evidence then the simplest is names and characters were simply known
from some source and used to give historical weight to historical fiction. There
was an Akkadia in ancient times. Conan the Barbarian was an Akkanian.
In realizing it is fiction regardless of when it was created the simplest
explanation is by comparison to other fiction and seeing what fiction writers
do. To say they could not have invented the story of the Babylonian captivity is
like saying "Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon" could not have been made
unless it had a kernel of truth. (See imdb.com.) There is a kernel of
inspiration but not a kernel of truth.
So trying to find a kernel in names and events found in the bible is searching
for the truth kernel rather than the simpler inspiration kernel. The truth
kernel is clearly must more complicated because the instant you assume that you
have to address why everything else but the name or event is all wrong. Once it
is simply inspiration for fiction writers there is no need to go any further. It
is simplest and it is fiction.
And then these rationalizations are intensely incestuous. Someone creates an
explanation referencing something else which references something else which
likely references the first in the chain. Just a few days ago I was reading one
that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed. But around the
incestuous circle the believers go.
--
The only thing to negotiate between Palestine and Israel is the schedule for
Israel's withdrawal.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3990
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Martin Edwards
little attempt to preserve the unities. Docetism, eg, was a "heresy"
which was eventually put a stop to, but if you go by Philippians it was
the truth. Even "heresy" has acquired in retrospect the colouring it
was given Irenaeus. In the Classical world it simply meant your
"choice" of spiritual path.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> Just a few days ago I was reading one
> that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
> in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
> the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
> comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
> has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
> frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
> next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Martin Edwards
> In message <48102b5f$0$7710$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a few days ago I was reading one
>> that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
>> in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
>> the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
>> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
>> comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
>> has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
>> frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
>> next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
>
> Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
>
> 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
>
> 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
>
> I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
> who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
> of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
> archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
>
> Ken Down
>
with chariots? Matt may or may not have misunderstood. If he was
reading a textbook ie, where the Judaeo-Christian mythos is concerned, a
story book, there are quite a few variations.
Kendall K. Down
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, does it refer to a kingdom of Israel, and did it have a large army
> with chariots?
So the Assyrians report.
> Matt may or may not have misunderstood.
Matt the Pratt is incapable of understanding.
> If he was
> reading a textbook ie, where the Judaeo-Christian mythos is concerned, a
> story book, there are quite a few variations.
Don't be silly. Matt the Pratt doesn't read books; they bring him out in a
rash.
Matt Giwer
> In message <48102b5f$0$7710$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a few days ago I was reading one
>> that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
>> in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
>> the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
>> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
>> comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
>> has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
>> frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
>> next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
> Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
> 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
> 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
> I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
> who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
> of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
> archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
One has to ask what you think you are talking about. The Shalamaneser II
inscription has this as the "mention" you are talking about.
[2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of
gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand,
(and) staves: I received.
One has to be very desperate to find a confirmation of the mythical biblical
Israel in that. I do not see any mention of Israel, David, Solomon, temple,
Yahweh, Jerusalem or anything else. The most I see a couple names that are
somewhat similar to names found in the OT about an event not in the OT. There is
no Assyrian captivity here. There is no deportation.
How desperate do you have to be to claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for
Omri, as there are no vowels in the inscription, confirm all the significant
identifiers of this mythical Israel which are not mentioned?
Perhaps the better question is who is going to believe you are an
archaeologist? Perhaps you could provide some links to your publications and
professional affiliations? Thank you for your time.
--
Israel exists to spread hatred of Jews.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3984
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Matt Giwer
> Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> In message <48102b5f$0$7710$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Just a few days ago I was reading one that was predicated on the
>>> bible story that recounted the Judean participation in the battle
>>> that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of the
>>> Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
>>> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind.
>>> And it all comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war
>>> chariots when there has not been a single indication of a single
>>> chariot in bibleland from that time frame. No one just puts together
>>> a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the next day and destroys
>>> all traces of it ever having existed.
>> Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
>> 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
>> 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
>> I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
>> who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the
>> facts
>> of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
>> archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
> So, does it refer to a kingdom of Israel, and did it have a large army
> with chariots? Matt may or may not have misunderstood. If he was
> reading a textbook ie, where the Judaeo-Christian mythos is concerned, a
> story book, there are quite a few variations.
The issue of the chariots is as I said. One does not put together a thousand
chariots for a battle and disband them. Clearly it would have taken generations
to develop the capability. You would expect dozens then hundreds over the years
before reaching a force this size. And then you expect it to be mentioned by
others and after a peak its slow decline. You expect the region to be littered
with the equipment to manufacture these chariots and fittings. You also expect
the region to be littered with drawings of them and inscriptions describing
their victories. However we find no evidence of more than region of illiterate
peasants and damned few horse bones even though their hooves were not "cloven".
The whole thing is based upon some believer "divining" the Assyrians called
Israel the "house of Omri". There is no other example of the name so it just had
to be tortured until it confessed to being the bible story. The least biased
view would have this "land of the Omris" or Omristan or in our term, Samaria.
That would include the Syrian (aka Golan) Heights, quite fertile, suited to
grazing horses and very close to Damascus which we know existed back then and
did have chariots.
That the bible creators used names and invented impossible stories about them
is well know and Egypt is the best known example. Babylon is just as wrong but
less well known. The Septuagint created an entire mythical history of conflict
with the Palestine Syrians. And the fact that is what they considered themselves
makes the inscription reference to some Samarian Syrians.
One must never forget the things "confirming" the OT were all found back when
that is what they were expected to do. Not one single "confirmation" has been
found since researchers looked at the region without a bible bias. I am likely
mistaken but this inscription was found in 1905 and it is also the last find
claimed to describe events in the bible. Thousands of times more digging since
then and not a single thing.
Clearly all these old finds have to be viewed skeptically.
--
Everything Bush warns will happen if we leave Iraq has already happened
because we went into Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3981
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
jerry warner
"Kendall K. Down" wrote:
> In message <48102b5f$0$7710$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a few days ago I was reading one
> > that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
> > in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
> > the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
> > purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
> > comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
> > has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
> > frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
> > next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
>
> Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
>
> 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
>
> 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
>
> I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
> who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
> of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
> archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
>
Snow fairies and Peter Pan might interest you.
Martin Edwards
> In message <rnnQj.24068$Rr7....@newsfe29.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So, does it refer to a kingdom of Israel, and did it have a large army
>> with chariots?
>
> So the Assyrians report.
>
>> Matt may or may not have misunderstood.
>
> Matt the Pratt is incapable of understanding.
>
>> If he was
>> reading a textbook ie, where the Judaeo-Christian mythos is concerned, a
>> story book, there are quite a few variations.
>
> Don't be silly. Matt the Pratt doesn't read books; they bring him out in a
> rash.
>
> Ken Down
>
SolomonW
(na)"@mchsi.com> says...
>
>
> "Kendall K. Down" wrote:
>
> > In message <48102b5f$0$7710$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Just a few days ago I was reading one
> > > that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
> > > in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
> > > the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
> > > purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
> > > comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
> > > has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
> > > frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
> > > next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
> >
> > Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
> >
> > 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
> >
> > 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
> >
> > I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
> > who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
> > of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
> > archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
> >
>
> Snow fairies and Peter Pan might interest you.
>
Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
Martin Edwards
Good post.
Matt Giwer
...
> Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
And what is on it is well known and easy to find although not without the
believer's translation. There are no names identical to the OT. There are no
places of the OT. There is nothing whatsoever supporting the OT.
But if you think there is please tell us all what you think supports the OT.
--
The only good thing about Hillary becoming president will be conservatives
turning against the Iraq war.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3992
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Martin Edwards
really means. For the believer it is simple. If a word has two letters
which match a word in the Bible, it is confirmation of a story section.
SolomonW
says...
Your comments make as much sense as the a girl's comment that "I am only
a little bit pregnant!"
Matt Giwer
To repeat
And what is on it is well known and easy to find although not without the
believer's translation. There are no names identical to the OT. There are no
places of the OT. There is nothing whatsoever supporting the OT.
But if you think there is please tell us all what you think supports the OT.
I am still waiting for what you think supports the OT. The mere assertion that
it does is nonsense.
--
Collective punishment, n., criminal, see Israel
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3980
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Matt Giwer
> It is a question of how much can be deciphered, and what that amount
> really means. For the believer it is simple. If a word has two letters
> which match a word in the Bible, it is confirmation of a story section.
If two letters match it confirms every single word of the entire OT. Believers
are a stupid lot.
--
We know and the entire world knows US domestic and foreign policy is created
by campaign contributors. Why are we surprised when they react to the AIPAC
lobby?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3982
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Martin Edwards
to imply that I agreed with it. In fact all the supposed archaeological
evidence they adduce is "a little bit pregnant", ie not at all.
Martin Edwards
Dragonblaze
[snippage]
> One has to ask what you think you are talking about. The Shalamaneser II
> inscription has this as the "mention" you are talking about.
>
> [2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of
> gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand,
> (and) staves: I received.
>
> One has to be very desperate to find a confirmation of the mythical biblical
> Israel in that. I do not see any mention of Israel, David, Solomon, temple,
> Yahweh, Jerusalem or anything else. The most I see a couple names that are
> somewhat similar to names found in the OT about an event not in the OT. There is
> no Assyrian captivity here. There is no deportation.
>
> How desperate do you have to be to claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for
> Omri, as there are no vowels in the inscription, confirm all the significant
> identifiers of this mythical Israel which are not mentioned?
What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
here, unfortunately).
Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
writing, this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
Dragonblaze
- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -
SolomonW
You miss the point of the joke "a little pregnant" is enough.
SolomonW
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
> There are no names identical to the OT.
>
Really do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Martin Edwards
Could you supply a symbol with your jokes?
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> The whole thing is based upon some believer "divining" the Assyrians called
> Israel the "house of Omri". There is no other example of the name so it just had
> to be tortured until it confessed to being the bible story. The least biased
> view would have this "land of the Omris" or Omristan or in our term, Samaria.
> That would include the Syrian (aka Golan) Heights, quite fertile, suited to
> grazing horses and very close to Damascus which we know existed back then and
> did have chariots.
Oh boy! Matt the Pratt gets prattier and prattier.
1. He admits that the land of Omri is Samaria, but tries to deny that it has
anything to do with Omri, the ruler of Samaria.
2. He claims that the Golan Heights are quite fertile, showing that he has
never been there.
3. He also admits that this "Omristan" included the Golan Heights; curious
how Matt the Pratt's version is identical to the Biblical description of
Israel ruled by Omri - yet isn't! And how do we know that it isn't? Because
Matt the Pratt says so.
Kendall K. Down
SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
> Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
Thanks, SolomonW. Of course I'm right - I'm contradicting Matt the Pratt, so
that automatically makes me right!
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Just a few days ago I was reading one
> >> that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
> >> in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
> >> the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
> >> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
> >> comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
> >> has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
> >> frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
> >> next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
> > Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
> > 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
> > 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
> > I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
> > who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
> > of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
> > archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
> One has to ask what you think you are talking about. The Shalamaneser II
> inscription has this as the "mention" you are talking about.
Once again Matt the Pratt, caught out in yet another lie, attempts to escape
by obfuscation.
1. The Black Obelisk is of Shalmaneser III, not II.
2. In any case I wasn't talking about that but about the inscription which
contains the information specified in the first paragraph above.
3. And finally, the rubbish you spouted about the Black Obelisk inscription
is not worth refuting.
Kendall K. Down
Dragonblaze <drago...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
> and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
> is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
> of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
> with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
> hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
> here, unfortunately).
> Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
> Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
> writing, this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
> kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
> Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
I haven't seen you around here before, Dragonblaze, so let me fill you in on
a few facts. Matt the Pratt is a pro-nazi Holocaust denier with an
obsessional hatred for Jews. He therefore does his pathetic best to
dennigrate any claim that the Bible is historical - and you have just
responded to a typical Matt the Pratt attempt to evade the facts by
obfuscation.
Kendall K. Down
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good post.
Sock puppet.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> > Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
> And what is on it is well known and easy to find
Strange, then, that you managed in a previous post to refer to the wrong
stele and in any case to give the wrong name for the king who was
responsible for that stele.
The kind-hearted might think that you were merely displaying the boundless
nature of your ignorance. Having had you do the same sort of thing before, I
recognise deliberate obfuscation.
Kendall K. Down
SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
> Your comments make as much sense as the a girl's comment that "I am only
> a little bit pregnant!"
Martin Edwards is the faithful acolyte of Matt the Pratt and can be relied
upon to sycophantically admire every word uttered by the fount of all
ignorance.
Dragonblaze
wrote:
> In message <cfc35f7b-1f6f-4b88-ae9f-9c2bc4e4a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
> > and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
> > is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
> > of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
> > with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
> > hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
> > here, unfortunately).
> > Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
> > Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
> > writing, this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
> > kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
> > Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
>
> I haven't seen you around here before, Dragonblaze, so let me fill you in on
> a few facts. Matt the Pratt is a pro-nazi Holocaust denier with an
> obsessional hatred for Jews. He therefore does his pathetic best to
> dennigrate any claim that the Bible is historical - and you have just
> responded to a typical Matt the Pratt attempt to evade the facts by
> obfuscation.
Yeah, I know - as I do hang out here now and then and have previously
corrected some of the glaring errors in his posts. His problem is, of
course, that due to the warped mindset of all neo-Nazis, he is
completely unable to face historical facts. I don't debate him to try
to make him wake up and smell the coffee - I fully realize that is a
hopeless task - but to educate onlookers.
Cheers,
Martin Edwards
> In message <9iGQj.1665$ww6...@newsfe09.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Good post.
>
> Sock puppet.
>
> Ken Down
>
Martin Edwards
To coin a phrase, Christ!
Martin Edwards
> In message <MPG.227f47eb8bbf23b9989715@news>
> SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
>
>> Your comments make as much sense as the a girl's comment that "I am only
>> a little bit pregnant!"
>
> Martin Edwards is the faithful acolyte of Matt the Pratt and can be relied
> upon to sycophantically admire every word uttered by the fount of all
> ignorance.
>
> Ken Down
>
time and time again on the issue of holocaust denial. I have also
repeated that he is far from proving his hypothesis that the Septuagint
is the original OT. He seems to be unaware that this would be very
unlikely as, even if that particular recension were new, it would have
been made up by /bricolage/ (see Mack: The Lost Gospel) from existing
scribal traditions, which were numerous and in many different
languages. You seem to be unaware of this too. On the other hand his
/hypothesis/ (look that up if you do not understand it) that it was
compiled as a myth of origin for a religion which emerged under the
Maccabees, is an interesting one, which many better qualified people
have hinted at without being specific. This is a history group. The
assertion that something is wrong because it contradicts what you were
taught at Sunday school is, frankly, below par.
Matt Giwer
> On 26 Apr, 00:56, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> [snippage]
>> One has to ask what you think you are talking about. The Shalamaneser II
>> inscription has this as the "mention" you are talking about.
>> [2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of
>> gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand,
>> (and) staves: I received.
>> One has to be very desperate to find a confirmation of the mythical biblical
>> Israel in that. I do not see any mention of Israel, David, Solomon, temple,
>> Yahweh, Jerusalem or anything else. The most I see a couple names that are
>> somewhat similar to names found in the OT about an event not in the OT. There is
>> no Assyrian captivity here. There is no deportation.
>> How desperate do you have to be to claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for
>> Omri, as there are no vowels in the inscription, confirm all the significant
>> identifiers of this mythical Israel which are not mentioned?
> What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
> and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
> is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
> of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
> with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
> hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
> here, unfortunately).
Again, where do you see an MR from the Aramaic for Omri?
> Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
> Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
> writing,
Or they did and used it as inspiration for some names. The only disagreement is
when it was written. As there is no evidence of anything older than the
Septuagint that is rationally considered the original.
> this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
> kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
> Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
Please point out where this shows anything about biblical Israel and EXACTLY
which words do so. Take all the time you need.
So far as I can see this does not rise above claiming the land of Oz is real
because Baum had a book with the name O-Z. Its companion volume was labeled A-N
but close enough, right?
--
The question of who would Jesus nuke is very relevant. If you ask whom God
would nuke the answer is every first born and then some.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3979
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
The person making the claim has to support it. The ball is in your court. IF
you really do take it as confirmation then exactly WHAT do you see as
confirmation? If you do not then why are you wasting bandwidth posting?
--
Collective punishment, n., criminal, see Israel
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3980
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> It is a question of how much can be deciphered, and what that amount
>>> really means. For the believer it is simple. If a word has two
>>> letters which match a word in the Bible, it is confirmation of a
>>> story section.
>> If two letters match it confirms every single word of the entire
>> OT. Believers are a stupid lot.
> Come, come, Matt, let's not be ill-natured.
I can find no grounds for saying anything else. If they merely which to present
their religious beliefs that is there business although this is the wrong forum
for doing so. Once they make a simple declarative sentence the burden of
evidence is in their court.
Kendall K. Down
Dragonblaze <drago...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I know - as I do hang out here now and then and have previously
> corrected some of the glaring errors in his posts. His problem is, of
> course, that due to the warped mindset of all neo-Nazis, he is
> completely unable to face historical facts. I don't debate him to try
> to make him wake up and smell the coffee - I fully realize that is a
> hopeless task - but to educate onlookers.
That's the only reason I respond to some of his nonsense as well.
Kendall K. Down
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On the other hand his
> /hypothesis/ (look that up if you do not understand it) that it was
> compiled as a myth of origin for a religion which emerged under the
> Maccabees, is an interesting one, which many better qualified people
> have hinted at without being specific.
Judaism, as we find it in the time of Christ, certainly emerged under the
Hasmonaeans - but what did it emerge from? Answer: from the religion that we
find in the Biblical prophets. The Hasmonaeans simply added some Greek
culture to the mix.
> This is a history group.
No, it is an archaeology group.
Matt Giwer
> In message <9iGQj.1665$ww6...@newsfe09.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Good post.
> Sock puppet.
You post no substantive material. You appeal only to your inferior education
and pretensions of being an archaeologist.
--
Is it legitimate to ask why the only country friendly to Mugabe's government
is Israel or is that an antisemitic question?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3977
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Matt Giwer
> In message <4812b645$0$5115$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> The whole thing is based upon some believer "divining" the Assyrians called
>> Israel the "house of Omri". There is no other example of the name so it just had
>> to be tortured until it confessed to being the bible story. The least biased
>> view would have this "land of the Omris" or Omristan or in our term, Samaria.
>> That would include the Syrian (aka Golan) Heights, quite fertile, suited to
>> grazing horses and very close to Damascus which we know existed back then and
>> did have chariots.
> Oh boy! Matt the Pratt gets prattier and prattier.
Against all odds you become less literate every day.
> 1. He admits that the land of Omri is Samaria, but tries to deny that it has
> anything to do with Omri, the ruler of Samaria.
I took a guess which is clear in context. Samaria is where the Koran holds the
real biblical good guys lived while the fake ones in Judea perverted the
religion. I do not support that either but clearly there was a much different
tradition than the one invented in the New Testament and which was independent
from it in the 6th c. AD.
> 2. He claims that the Golan Heights are quite fertile, showing that he has
> never been there.
Israel steals 1/3 of its water from there. Jewish criminals run a sky resort
there. Jewish criminals have some of their most productive farms there. Moshe
Dayan said it was for greed for that fertile land that Israel attacked Syria in
the 1967 war. Is there anything else you missed that is regularly discussed in
Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post?
> 3. He also admits that this "Omristan" included the Golan Heights; curious
> how Matt the Pratt's version is identical to the Biblical description of
> Israel ruled by Omri - yet isn't! And how do we know that it isn't? Because
> Matt the Pratt says so.
It remains your imaginary claim that the inscription proves there was a Moses
and a Solomon who had a temple in Jerusalem and all the rest of the fantasies of
the creators of the Septuagint. You have yet to establish a single one of those
things from the inscription.
As has been noted, if two of the same letters are found on an inscription
unrelated to any bible story then to believer claims those two letters confirm
everything in the OT including the talking snake and the magic flood.
Believers are clearly very retarded.
--
Why do we never hear complaints about the National
Socialist Zionist Workers Party?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3983
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
You have yet to show there are more than two letters in the spelling of MR.
What you did do was show how imaginary the translation of an unknown word. When
one comes across an unknown name one needs at least two examples of it to
establish its meaning. This is the only time it appears. That is why I said the
meaning had to be divined and forced to reveal its meaning.
And EVEN IF the divination and torture is correct it says the real name of the
country had nothing to do with any bible story that can be distinguished from
simply a name borrowed the Septuagint creators.
One of the major problems with believers is they want to believe. And the basic
FACT that I recite is that there important characters and events in the
Septuagint do not appear prior to the Septuagint. As there is no mention of this
tribute in the Septuagint my statement is correct. That you can imagine a
connection between this inscription and the OT is a tribute only to your desire
to believe. It is not something supported by the inscription.
But since believers believe in talking snakes (or that the creators of the
Septuagint were LIARS) and world floods (or that the creators of the Septuagint
were LIARS) and that there was a kingdom of Israel from the Nile to the
Euphrates (or that the creators of the Septuagint were LIARS) are things they
prefer to explain away rather than admit they were liars.
--
We know and the entire world knows US domestic and foreign policy is created
by campaign contributors. Why are we surprised when they react to the AIPAC
lobby?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3982
Matt Giwer
> In message <4812b641$0$5115$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a few days ago I was reading one
>>>> that was predicated on the bible story that recounted the Judean participation
>>>> in the battle that stopped the Assyrian advance and went on to show the size of
>>>> the Judean kingdom at the time. Except I have been over the bible story
>>>> purporting to describe that conflict and it does nothing of the kind. And it all
>>>> comes down to some Judean king having had thousands of war chariots when there
>>>> has not been a single indication of a single chariot in bibleland from that time
>>>> frame. No one just puts together a chariot army overnight and vanishes it the
>>>> next day and destroys all traces of it ever having existed.
>>> Poor old Matt the Pratt, lying as usual.
>>> 1. The story is on an Assyrian stele - not the Bible.
>>> 2. It relates to the kingdom of Israel, not Judah.
>>> I know this won't dent Matt the Pratt's iron-plated stupidity, but anyone
>>> who is tempted to take him seriously might just like to check out the facts
>>> of the case and see which of us is telling the truth - me, the
>>> archaeologist, or Matt the Pratt, the nazi fantasist.
>
>> One has to ask what you think you are talking about. The Shalamaneser II
>> inscription has this as the "mention" you are talking about.
>
> Once again Matt the Pratt, caught out in yet another lie, attempts to escape
> by obfuscation.
>
> 1. The Black Obelisk is of Shalmaneser III, not II.
There ain't but one obelisk.
> 2. In any case I wasn't talking about that but about the inscription which
> contains the information specified in the first paragraph above.
Please provide the translation you prefer and show how it mentions anything in
the OT. But it has to be exactly what is in the OT not your fantasy about a
connection.
> 3. And finally, the rubbish you spouted about the Black Obelisk inscription
> is not worth refuting.
I never have expectations of people so insecure they have to pretend to be
archaeologists to get attention. Even David/Carl doesn't go that far.
I simply QUOTED one of the accepted translations of the inscription. It clearly
shows the creators of the Septuagint were either intended to create fiction or
were deliberate liars. In any event they failed to mention the substance of the
inscription as per this translation.
--
If the creators of the US constitution had meant 'cruel OR unusual
punishment' they were certainly capable of saying so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3989
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> In message <MPG.227f47eb8bbf23b9989715@news>
> SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
>> Your comments make as much sense as the a girl's comment that "I am only
>> a little bit pregnant!"
> Martin Edwards is the faithful acolyte of Matt the Pratt and can be relied
> upon to sycophantically admire every word uttered by the fount of all
> ignorance.
Edwards is too bright for that.
He thinks for himself.
You think like your sunday school teacher told you to think.
--
Is it legitimate to ask why the only country friendly to Mugabe's government
is Israel or is that an antisemitic question?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3977
Matt Giwer
> In message <MPG.227ddbbe5...@us.Usenet-News.net>
> SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
>> Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
> Thanks, SolomonW. Of course I'm right - I'm contradicting Matt the Pratt, so
> that automatically makes me right!
It automatically shows you are a fake archaeologist and not educated beyond
sunday school.
--
The only good thing about Hillary becoming president will be conservatives
turning against the Iraq war.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3992
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> In message <MPG.227f47eb8bbf23b9989715@news>
>> SolomonW <Solo...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:
>>> Your comments make as much sense as the a girl's comment that "I am
>>> only a little bit pregnant!"
>> Martin Edwards is the faithful acolyte of Matt the Pratt and can be
>> relied
>> upon to sycophantically admire every word uttered by the fount of all
>> ignorance.
> Not so. Look up a few threads and you will see that I have attacked him
> time and time again on the issue of holocaust denial. I have also
> repeated that he is far from proving his hypothesis that the Septuagint
> is the original OT.
No one ever has to prove a negative. The simple question is what is the
earliest known form of the OT. The correct answer is the Septuagint. Any other
answer is faith. If someone says the Septuagint is a translation they have the
burden of producing the evidence that it is a translation.
> He seems to be unaware that this would be very
> unlikely as, even if that particular recension were new, it would have
> been made up by /bricolage/ (see Mack: The Lost Gospel) from existing
> scribal traditions, which were numerous and in many different
> languages. You seem to be unaware of this too.
Since when is "unlikely" an issue in light of the fact that nothing in the OT
really happened? The only question is who and when this collection of fiction
was created. The older it is the harder it is to explain why it is all wrong
about almost everything. The older it is the harder it is to answer who
translated it from Phoenician and when. The older it is the harder it is to
explain all the innovative, Greek invented literary styles. The older it is the
harder to explain why there is no external mention of it.
And this on top of no mention of even the people supposedly having these
stories not appearing in history until after the Septuagint appears.
If there is a single credible explanation for just those items and ALL of them
then there might be a way to build a case for something older than the
Septuagint. But "probability" is meaningless with only a single example.
Even the OT itself does not say when it was written. Tradition is no more than
someone's guess. The "age" of its creation went from Moses to the "least known"
time in bibleland in the last century AFTER some two thousand years of Moses
authorship. The change of when it was written is based upon NOTHING but knowing
it could not have been older than the latest guess. The latest guess has NOT
changed the tradition. When it was created is simply an academic debate without
any foundation at all.
> On the other hand his
> /hypothesis/ (look that up if you do not understand it) that it was
> compiled as a myth of origin for a religion which emerged under the
> Maccabees, is an interesting one, which many better qualified people
> have hinted at without being specific. This is a history group. The
> assertion that something is wrong because it contradicts what you were
> taught at Sunday school is, frankly, below par.
I remind you I was told over the years to look into the Copenhagen school but I
did not until after I came to the Maccabe/Septuagint guess and someone told me
it was one of their ideas. I certainly do not think like they do but I came to
that as the best hypothesis.
And note the subject. I have been trying to track down the claim there was a
Hebrew to translate into Greek. My original post says what I am finding is that
at late as 1st AD "hebrew" is really Aramaic. There is nothing to translate it
from if the "hebrew" of that century was Aramaic. And if translated from Aramaic
we know when that arrived and it becomes the earliest date of creation.
--
The question of who would Jesus nuke is very relevant. If you ask whom God
would nuke the answer is every first born and then some.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3979
Martin Edwards
> In message <dlGRj.112200$fx2....@newsfe08.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand his
>> /hypothesis/ (look that up if you do not understand it) that it was
>> compiled as a myth of origin for a religion which emerged under the
>> Maccabees, is an interesting one, which many better qualified people
>> have hinted at without being specific.
>
> Judaism, as we find it in the time of Christ, certainly emerged under the
> Hasmonaeans - but what did it emerge from? Answer: from the religion that we
> find in the Biblical prophets. The Hasmonaeans simply added some Greek
> culture to the mix.
>
the mythical kingdoms of the OT were real.
>> This is a history group.
>
> No, it is an archaeology group.
>
Duly trimmed.
> Ken Down
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
[snip]
> >> How desperate do you have to be to claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for
> >> Omri, as there are no vowels in the inscription, confirm all the significant
> >> identifiers of this mythical Israel which are not mentioned?
> > What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
> > and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
> > is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
> > of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
> > with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
> > hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
> > here, unfortunately).
>
> Again, where do you see an MR from the Aramaic for Omri?
This is what you said, and I quote "How desperate do you have to be to
claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for Omri, as there are no vowels
in the inscription."
The Black Obelisk inscription is NOT, repeat NOT in Aramaic, but in
Akkadian, as you can plainly see if you bother to take a look at a
picture of the Black Obelisk at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/14-6.jpg
As I explained before, Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system.
Your name, just for a simple example, could be written as ma-at-tu gi-
we-ru. And since I _have_ studied Akkadian, I can read the text
independently.
> > Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
> > Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
> > writing,
>
> Or they did and used it as inspiration for some names. The only disagreement is
> when it was written. As there is no evidence of anything older than the
> Septuagint that is rationally considered the original.
Let's see... The Black Obelisk was erected in 825 BCE, and Kalhu was
destroyed 612 BCE.The Black Obelisk was discovered in 1846.
Now Prophets - which do include the 1 and 2 Kings, were written and
edited between 586-200 BCE, during which time the Black Obelisk was
buried in the tell of Kalhu. When Layard excavated the site, his dig
reports (though not on par with modern archaelogical dig reports) do
not mention any disturbance of the site. From that we can surmise that
the Black Obelisk had lain undisturbed ever since the Medes torched
the city, and it was abandoned. So where did your Septuagint writers
got their access to the Black Obelisk, and where did they learn how to
read Akkadian? Let me assure you that even though the two languages
are related, you simply cannot understand Akkadian if you know only
Hebrew - or Aramaic for that matter.
> > this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
> > kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
> > Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
>
> Please point out where this shows anything about biblical Israel and EXACTLY
> which words do so. Take all the time you need.
Did I mention something about 'Jehu, son of Omri'? I seem to think I
did. Since both rulers are attested in both the Bible and Assyrian
texts as kings of Israel (as is Ahab of the land of Israel [a-ha-ab-
bu {mat} si-ri-la-a]), it is independently corroborated historical
evidence - and if I do have the time to really go digging at the
original Assyrian texts, I can find quite a few references to Israel
and Judah. Here's a free hint: find out about the Lachis ostraca and
the Sennacherib orthostats from Nineveh.
> So far as I can see this does not rise above claiming the land of Oz is real
> because Baum had a book with the name O-Z. Its companion volume was labeled A-N
> but close enough, right?
No, and for the reasons I explained above. I simply DO NOT understand
where you get the idea that the Black Obelisk text should be in
Aramaic.
On the other hand, your argument is close to saying that because
Napoleon is mentioned in both British and French texts, he must
actually be a figment of the imagination of a 20th century French
writer who is trying to build an imaginary past.
Dragonblaze
- Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do skyscrapers! -
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
[snip]
>
> You have yet to show there are more than two letters in the spelling of MR.
> What you did do was show how imaginary the translation of an unknown word.
First off, the signs are hu, um, ri, and i. There is nothing imaginary
about that, and that IS the original Akkadian spelling. If you
actually could understand that there is a world of a difference
between Hebrew and Akkadian writing, this would be a little easier.
Learning to read Akkadian might help to get rid of your fantasy. Or
even taking a look at a sign list:
http://www.sumerisches-glossar.de/download/SignListNeoAssyrian.pdf
>When
> one comes across an unknown name one needs at least two examples of it to
> establish its meaning. This is the only time it appears. That is why I said the
> meaning had to be divined and forced to reveal its meaning.
Free clue: try figuring out Gog and Magog of the Biblical text,
correlate to Akkadian and Greek texts, and you will find what it
really meant (and no, it is not a Hebrew/Israelite/Judean entity) -
that will show you exactly how it is done.
> And EVEN IF the divination and torture is correct it says the real name of the
> country had nothing to do with any bible story that can be distinguished from
> simply a name borrowed the Septuagint creators.
What "divination and torture"? It appears you still have no clue
whatsoever what the _original cuneiform text_ reads as: it reads ia-u-
a mar hu-um-ri-i, the 'mar' there being the logogram for 'son' - a
VERY standard Akkadian practice. In a previous post I did explain what
happened to the Black Obelisk and when the 1 and 2 of Kings were
finalized (and even that gives a much earlier date than that of the
LXX - now _try_ explaining how on Earth those clever LXX writers got
hold of an artifact that was buried hundreds of years before their
time.
> One of the major problems with believers is they want to believe.
Who's the believer here? An agnostic who simply happens to have
studied both Assyriology and ANE history? Or someone who tries to
disprove history to justify a private worldview?
> And the basic
> FACT that I recite is that there important characters and events in the
> Septuagint do not appear prior to the Septuagint. As there is no mention of this
> tribute in the Septuagint my statement is correct. That you can imagine a
> connection between this inscription and the OT is a tribute only to your desire
> to believe. It is not something supported by the inscription.
While it is perfectly true that the Bible does not mention this
tribute, you also have to understand that the Kings are not annals,
and every single action is not mention there - as should be pretty
obvious to anyone who has ever bothered to read the text. That I can
read Cuneiform and recognize i-au-a-a as Yehu (and THAT is how it
should actually be, not with the 'J') and hu-um-ri-i as 'Omri has
simply nothing to do with "wanting to believe", but being able to
correlate sources.
> But since believers believe in talking snakes (or that the creators of the
> Septuagint were LIARS) and world floods (or that the creators of the Septuagint
> were LIARS) and that there was a kingdom of Israel from the Nile to the
> Euphrates (or that the creators of the Septuagint were LIARS) are things they
> prefer to explain away rather than admit they were liars.
What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
Dragonblaze
- Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do to skyscrapers!
-
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> As there is no evidence of anything older than the
> Septuagint that is rationally considered the original.
For Matt the Pratt to talk about "rationally" is the height of the absurd.
George
> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
I have a feeling that matt and its straw puppet have been outed in yet
another field
Martin Edwards
The point being precisely that neither Israel or Judah are mentioned in
the cited academic fields.
Kendall K. Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> > 1. The Black Obelisk is of Shalmaneser III, not II.
> There ain't but one obelisk.
1. Egypt is full of them.
2. If, however, you are referring to the obelisk which mentions Jehu, it is
of Shalmaneser III, not II.
Duck, weave and obfuscate how you will, yet again you have been shown to be
an ignorant prat.
Kendall K. Down
Dragonblaze <drago...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
> religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
Yes, but Dragonblaze! You don't agree with Matt the Pratt, so ergo you are
irrational, a misguided religionist and entirely lacking in education.
I'm surprised you haven't realised that for yourself. Repent and become a
sycophant (or a sock puppet) like Martin and you will be able to bask in the
sunshine of Matt the Pratt's approbation.
Kendall K. Down
Dragonblaze <drago...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> No, and for the reasons I explained above. I simply DO NOT understand
> where you get the idea that the Black Obelisk text should be in
> Aramaic.
Don't bother, Dragonblaze. Way back at the beginning of this thread someone
mentioned an inscription which says that Ahab of Israel provided a large
number of chariots to fight against the Assyrians (though they, being
ignorant, attributed it to the Bible).
The mere thought that anyone might give historical credibility to Israel
brought Matt the Pratt out in spots and, foaming at the mouth, he posted a
long diatribe denying it.
I then posted confirmation that the inscription existed, whereupon Matt the
Pratt adopted his favourite method of obfuscation: he started talking about
something else entirely - namely, the Shalmaneser III Black Obelisk, though
in an attempt to hide the truth, he talked about Shalmaneser II instead of
III.
Claiming that the inscription is in Aramaic is yet another attempt to evade
the truth and is a deliberate ploy on the part of Matt the Pratt.
Matt Giwer
I am still awaiting for YOUR physical evidence in support of any person or
event of significance found in the Septuagint. I also await YOUR physical
evidence of anything older than the Septuagint which tells these stories.
--
Is it legitimate to ask why the only country that was friendly to apartheid
South Africa was Israel or is that an antisemitic question?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3978
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Matt Giwer
> On 30 Apr, 03:40, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> How desperate do you have to be to claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for
>>>> Omri, as there are no vowels in the inscription, confirm all the significant
>>>> identifiers of this mythical Israel which are not mentioned?
>>> What are you on about? Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system,
>>> and the inscription on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III certainly
>>> is NOT YH and KHMR but ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transcribed as Jehu, son
>>> of Omri. Remember, Akkadian does not have 'O', so any name starting
>>> with an o would be written as 'hu' or 'u'. It also is not the emphatic
>>> hu (transcribed with a dot under the h, which I cannot use as a font
>>> here, unfortunately).
>> Again, where do you see an MR from the Aramaic for Omri?
> This is what you said, and I quote "How desperate do you have to be to
> claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for Omri, as there are no vowels
> in the inscription."
I do not have an editor and little time to review. To rephrase, there are no
vowels in the Phoenician believers claim is early Hebrew.
> The Black Obelisk inscription is NOT, repeat NOT in Aramaic,
Correct.
> but in
> Akkadian, as you can plainly see if you bother to take a look at a
> picture of the Black Obelisk at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/14-6.jpg
> As I explained before, Cuneiform is a logo-syllabic writing system.
> Your name, just for a simple example, could be written as ma-at-tu gi-
> we-ru. And since I _have_ studied Akkadian, I can read the text
> independently.
But can you divine the house of omri really means Israel? If so, how? And if
not, where does the inscription mention a significant person or event in the
Septuagint?
>>> Bearing that in mind, and remembering that the people who wrote the
>>> Bible did not have the access to the Black Obelisk at the time of the
>>> writing,
>> Or they did and used it as inspiration for some names. The only disagreement is
>> when it was written. As there is no evidence of anything older than the
>> Septuagint that is rationally considered the original.
> Let's see... The Black Obelisk was erected in 825 BCE, and Kalhu was
> destroyed 612 BCE.The Black Obelisk was discovered in 1846.
Discovered in modern times. We have no idea when it was lost to public
knowledge. It could have been in 1746. Or maybe never and buried when the locals
found the foolish Christians were willing to pay money to dig things up. It is
not like there were any protocols at all in 1846 much less archaeologists. They
were all bible thumpers expecting to find nothing but confirmation of the
Septuagint.
> Now Prophets - which do include the 1 and 2 Kings, were written and
> edited between 586-200 BCE,
HOW does anyone know that? Please present the physical evidence which makes
that knowledge or even probable instead of conjecture or faith.
> during which time the Black Obelisk was
> buried in the tell of Kalhu.
No one knows when it was buried.
> When Layard excavated the site, his dig
> reports (though not on par with modern archaelogical dig reports) do
> not mention any disturbance of the site.
Why would he mention he did not know was of importance? Would he care even if
it were? If your answer is yes, please tell me the basis for yes.
> From that we can surmise that
> the Black Obelisk had lain undisturbed ever since the Medes torched
> the city, and it was abandoned.
Can't get there from a lack of mention when there were ZERO protocols and no
archaeologists.
> So where did your Septuagint writers
> got their access to the Black Obelisk, and where did they learn how to
> read Akkadian? Let me assure you that even though the two languages
> are related, you simply cannot understand Akkadian if you know only
> Hebrew - or Aramaic for that matter.
I have only said they used old names as historical fantasy writers do today. I
have no idea where they got the names. I did not say it was from this
inscription. I clearly indicated it is no different from the Land of Oz. There
is no basis for saying it was in fact buried. There is no basis for saying it
was the ONLY use of the name in any inscription. It is so far off the mark from
the inscription you can't really say it is from a source relating the same event.
You are trying to argue to a conclusion. That is a logical fallacy.
>>> this is pretty strong evidence of the historicity of the
>>> kingdom of Israel and its rulers from Omri onwards. Anything prior to
>>> Omri we simply do not have correlation from external sources.
>> Please point out where this shows anything about biblical Israel and EXACTLY
>> which words do so. Take all the time you need.
> Did I mention something about 'Jehu, son of Omri'? I seem to think I
> did.
And it is not Yehu son of Samaria? More like Yehu the Samarian? And you
repudiate those who say it means, Yehu of the house of Omri. Ever think about
what it might be translated if no one ever heard of the Septuagint? And pray
tell in the OT which son of MR was named YH? (J is relatively modern letter to
use.)
> Since both rulers are attested in both the Bible and Assyrian
> texts as kings of Israel (as is Ahab of the land of Israel [a-ha-ab-
> bu {mat} si-ri-la-a]),
si-ri-la-al interesting. What makes that Israel instead of Syria?
In any event you have to show biblical Israel, Israel as described in the
Septuagint, not merely that some place was called that. I ALWAYS say BIBLICAL
Israel in these discussions although I do not repeat it every time. If it is not
as described in the bible then it was just a name used for inspiration for a
grandiose fantasy.
> it is independently corroborated historical
> evidence - and if I do have the time to really go digging at the
> original Assyrian texts, I can find quite a few references to Israel
> and Judah.
Please do but remember they have to be as described in the bible. The names of
sheep stations used as inspiration need not apply.
> Here's a free hint: find out about the Lachis ostraca and
> the Sennacherib orthostats from Nineveh.
Produce the exact quotes and show me. You must know what they are else you
would not have mentioned them. This is not setting the bar too high. It is the
bar the believers set for themselves.
>> So far as I can see this does not rise above claiming the land of Oz is real
>> because Baum had a book with the name O-Z. Its companion volume was labeled A-N
>> but close enough, right?
> No, and for the reasons I explained above. I simply DO NOT understand
> where you get the idea that the Black Obelisk text should be in
> Aramaic.
Now corrected.
> On the other hand, your argument is close to saying that because
> Napoleon is mentioned in both British and French texts, he must
> actually be a figment of the imagination of a 20th century French
> writer who is trying to build an imaginary past.
And I see you as saying Horatio Hornblower was a real person because the
context of the story was vaguely as described in the stories.
Do not think this is anything special. I point out Homer's Iliad is fiction for
very similar reasons. But there they are closer in that they actually have a
city of the right age. Their problem is that it is too small at that time to
have been Ilium. Therefore at best that city was the inspiration for an epic
poem and people get upset with the idea that there is poetic license taken in a
poem. Until an Ilium which is as described in the Iliad the story is fantasy. So
also with Israel.
But please post the EXACT quotes you find which support either Ysrael or Yudeh
as described in the Septuagint before the Septuagint.
As with people who have a problem with an epic poem taking poetic license I
really have a problem with people insisting that a book of magic describes real
events as long as the most obvious magic is removed.
If you can make the case fine but realize we have to rewrite the entire history
of the development of literary forms because everything we now attribute to the
Greeks was really invented by the Jews who invented nothing else and taught the
Greeks all they knew about new literary forms.
> - Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do skyscrapers! -
Could you move a mountain or was that just PR?
--
What is foreseeable is intended. It may not
be desired but it is intended.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3985
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Matt Giwer
> On 30 Apr, 04:16, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
> [snip]
>> You have yet to show there are more than two letters in the spelling of MR.
>> What you did do was show how imaginary the translation of an unknown word.
> First off, the signs are hu, um, ri, and i. There is nothing imaginary
> about that, and that IS the original Akkadian spelling. If you
> actually could understand that there is a world of a difference
> between Hebrew and Akkadian writing, this would be a little easier.
> Learning to read Akkadian might help to get rid of your fantasy. Or
> even taking a look at a sign list:
> http://www.sumerisches-glossar.de/download/SignListNeoAssyrian.pdf
How does that forcefit into MR in Phoenician for Omri? From where comes the
fantasy that "israel" was referred to as the "house of omri" just because that
is the only way to make it relate?
What does any of this have to do with what is related as fact in the Septuagint?
Please be specific in your response.
...
>> But since believers believe in talking snakes (or that the creators of the
>> Septuagint were LIARS) and world floods (or that the creators of the Septuagint
>> were LIARS) and that there was a kingdom of Israel from the Nile to the
>> Euphrates (or that the creators of the Septuagint were LIARS) are things they
>> prefer to explain away rather than admit they were liars.
>
> What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
> religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
>
> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
You are running off a lot about this but there is no mention of Israel on the
inscription nor do it recount any event related in the Septuagint.
I have no opinion on any historical Israel or Judea except to CORRECTLY observe
there is no physical evidence for any biblical Israel nor is there any evidence
of any Judea until after the Septuagint appears.
If in fact you can produce physical evidence which contradicts those
observations please feel free to discuss it.
Tradition is not evidence. The Septuagint and the later "hebrew" version are
both without provenance. No one knows where they came from and there is no
physical evidence for the existence of any people who might have been recording
the people or events in them. There is nothing but pious tradition which has no
foundation in fact.
It is not clear what point you are trying to make here as I read nothing which
contradicts what I did in fact say. Why not try to focus on the substance. At
least show me a single other example of these same people calling Israel
Omristan in an unambiguous manner.
The whole thing is very absurd. Herodotus mentions Palestinians but not
Judeans. Alexander bypassed Jerusalem 'as though it did not exist.' Nothing
related to any Judea or Jerusalem are on the inventories of Alexander's
conquests. Even the events in the books of Maccabe are not mentioned any place
else. There is exactly one coin supporting Maccabe. There is no bibleland
coinage until the Bar Kokbah overstrikes in the 2nd c. AD.
--
Is it legitimate to ask why the only country friendly to Mugabe's government
is Israel or is that an antisemitic question?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3977
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
One more thing. There are exactly two mentions in antiquity that the Septuagint
is a translation of something older.
The first is the forged letter of Aristeas from the early 1st c. The second
mention is by Josephus late in the 1st c. citing the earlier letter as the
authority.
What more do you need to know?
--
The question of who would Jesus nuke is very relevant. If you ask whom God
would nuke the answer is every first born and then some.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3979
Matt Giwer
> In message <4813e891$0$12944$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Possibly but he is right the Assyrian stele exists.
> Strange, then, that you managed in a previous post to refer to the wrong
> stele and in any case to give the wrong name for the king who was
> responsible for that stele.
Then post the translation you are talking about.
> The kind-hearted might think that you were merely displaying the boundless
> nature of your ignorance. Having had you do the same sort of thing before, I
> recognise deliberate obfuscation.
You LIE when you claim to be an archaeologist.
--
You can always trust a Zionist to be a Zionist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3988
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Matt Giwer
> In message <4817dc0d$0$31718$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> As there is no evidence of anything older than the
>> Septuagint that is rationally considered the original.
> For Matt the Pratt to talk about "rationally" is the height of the absurd.
You present no evidence and you lie about being an archaeologist.
--
Why do we never hear complaints about the National
Socialist Zionist Workers Party?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3983
Matt Giwer
> In message <dlGRj.112200$fx2....@newsfe08.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On the other hand his
>> /hypothesis/ (look that up if you do not understand it) that it was
>> compiled as a myth of origin for a religion which emerged under the
>> Maccabees, is an interesting one, which many better qualified people
>> have hinted at without being specific.
> Judaism, as we find it in the time of Christ, certainly emerged under the
> Hasmonaeans - but what did it emerge from? Answer: from the religion that we
> find in the Biblical prophets. The Hasmonaeans simply added some Greek
> culture to the mix.
What did Islam emerge from? What did Mormonism emerge from? What did
Scientology emerge from?
However I have shown what Judaism was in the time of Christ. They still
worshiped both Astarte and Yahweh whom we first encounter as minor deities in
Ugarit.
>> This is a history group.
> No, it is an archaeology group.
But you are not an archaeologist.
--
The leading cause of suicide in the US is military service.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3991
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Dragonblaze
> George wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 9:59 pm, Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> >> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> >> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> >> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
>
> > I have a feeling that matt and its straw puppet have been outed in yet
> > another field
>
> The point being precisely that neither Israel or Judah are mentioned in
> the cited academic fields.
Okies, let's go quoting original sources:
The Merneptah Stele (Merneptah ruled 1213 - 1203 BC):
ysrỉr fk.t bn pr.t =f, "Israel is laid waste; its seed is not."
Never mind what it claims, we know the Pharaonic inscriptions always
claim to have wasted the enemy, though curiously almost always they
are forced to fight the same enemy again a few decades later. What is
important here is that this is the earliest know mention of Israel as
an ethnic entity.
The Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), Mesha erected the
stone roughly about 850 BCE:
"Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for
Kemosh was angry with his land. And his son replaced him; and he said,
"I will also oppress Moab". In my days he said so[...]. But I looked
down on him and on his house. And Israel has been defeated; has been
defeated forever, And Omri took possession of the whole land of
Madaba, and he lived there in his days and half the days of his son:
forty years. And Kemosh restored it in my days. And I built Baal Meon,
and I built a water reservoir in it. And I built Qiryaten.
And the men of Gad lived in the land of Atarot from ancient times; and
the king of Israel built Atarot for himself. and I fought against the
city and captured it. And I killed all the people of the city as a
sacrifice for Kemosh and for Moab. And I brought back the fire-hearth
of his uncle from there; and I brought it before Kemosh in Qerioit,
and I setteled the men of Sharon there, as well as the men of
Maharit.
And Kemosh said to me, "Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the
night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took
it and I killed it all: seven thousand men and (male) aliens, and
women and (female) aliens, and servant girls. Since for Ashtar Kemosh
I banned it. And from there I took the vessels of Yahweh, and I
brought them before Kemosh.
And the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he stayed there while he
fought against me. And Kemosh drove him away from me."
No mention of Israel in ancient sources, eh?
BTW, Matt, this also refutes your claim that 'Omri is mentioned only
once in ancient texts.
The Tel Dan Stele (9th-8th BCE, possibly erected by King Hazael or his
son Bar-Hadad of Damascus):
And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........
[.................]
of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two
thou[sand cha-]
riots and two thousand horsemen.
[I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and I killed
[Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g of the House of David. And I set
[.......................................................]
their land ...
[.......................................................................................]
other ...
[.........................................................................
and Jehu ru-]
led over
Is[rael...................................................................................]
siege upon
[............................................................]
Though the text is badly fragmentary, note that the term 'king of
Israel' is clearly present there.Incidentally, Hazael is mentioned in
the 2 Kings.
That enough, or do you want some Cuneiform texts with that as well?
Can and will do, but I think these few examples are enough to put paid
to your claim.
Dragonblaze
wrote:
> In message <cbd712f5-c878-41c0-8d4b-1bd546588...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
> > religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
>
> Yes, but Dragonblaze! You don't agree with Matt the Pratt, so ergo you are
> irrational, a misguided religionist and entirely lacking in education.
>
> I'm surprised you haven't realised that for yourself. Repent and become a
> sycophant (or a sock puppet) like Martin and you will be able to bask in the
> sunshine of Matt the Pratt's approbation.
I'd rather have every single one of my teeth pulled without the
benefit of anasthetic.
Dragonblaze
Dragonblaze
> George wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 9:59 pm, Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> >> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> >> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> >> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> >> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
> > I have a feeling that matt and its straw puppet have been outed in yet
> > another field
>
> I am still awaiting for YOUR physical evidence in support of any person or
> event of significance found in the Septuagint. I also await YOUR physical
> evidence of anything older than the Septuagint which tells these stories.
See my previous reply to Martin Edwards.
The Mesha Stele (the relevant part of which is in the previous reply)
corroborates - and again independently - 2 Kings chapter 3:
“Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and he had to deliver to
the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. But
when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
So King Jehoram marched out of Samaria at that time and mustered all
Israel. And he went and sent word to Jehoshaphat king of Judah, "The
king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to battle
against Moab?" And he said, "I will go. I am as you are, my people as
your people, my horses as your horses." Then he said, "By which way
shall we march?" Jehoram answered, "By the way of the wilderness of
Edom." So the king of Israel went with the king of Judah and the king
of Edom…When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against
him, he took with him 700 swordsmen to break through, opposite the
king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was
to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the
wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew
from him and returned to their own land."
That enough?
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> >> Again, where do you see an MR from the Aramaic for Omri?
> > This is what you said, and I quote "How desperate do you have to be to
> > claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for Omri, as there are no vowels
> > in the inscription."
>
> I do not have an editor and little time to review. To rephrase, there are no
> vowels in the Phoenician believers claim is early Hebrew.
עמרי (can't find paleo-Hebrew font) actually transliterates as 'mry,
not MR. The ' in the transliteration stands for 'ayin, which indicates
the presence of a vowel at the beginning of the word. So we get
(o)mry, the last yod being always a vowel, and pronounced as i. And
yes, there are vowels in the beginning of the words, alef and ayin -
as anyone who has ever studied Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic or Ugaritic
knows. Moreover, the Mesha stele is not in Hebrew, but in Moabite, but
the same rules apply.
[snip}
> But can you divine the house of omri really means Israel? If so, how? And if
> not, where does the inscription mention a significant person or event in the
> Septuagint?
That is very easy. The Assyrian texts usually refer to minor rulers as
being son of this and that person, in this case of Omri. Literal
sonship is seldom indicated, I have translated it literally as 'son
of', but more correct usage would be 'of the house of Omri'.
Since we know - as I have demonstrated - Omri is explicitly referred
to as the king of Israel (see again my reply to Martin Edwards for the
text of the Mesha Stele) and the Bible. Now, as the Black Obelisk of
Shalmaneser III mentions one ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transliterated as
Yehu mar Omri (and I explained in an earlier post that Akkadian has no
vowel O and that O is usually written with the sign 'hu') we end up
with one Yehu of the house of Omri, king of Israel.
[snip]
> > Let's see... The Black Obelisk was erected in 825 BCE, and Kalhu was
> > destroyed 612 BCE.The Black Obelisk was discovered in 1846.
>
> Discovered in modern times. We have no idea when it was lost to public
> knowledge. It could have been in 1746. Or maybe never and buried when the locals
> found the foolish Christians were willing to pay money to dig things up. It is
> not like there were any protocols at all in 1846 much less archaeologists. They
> were all bible thumpers expecting to find nothing but confirmation of the
> Septuagint.
But we do know that, unfortunately for your argument. As I mentioned
above, Kalhu was completely destroyed in 612 BCE. Have you ever seen
what happens to an ancient city built of wood and adobe tiles when it
is burnt? The walls collapse, burying everything underneath them.
Moreover, when Kalhu was destroyed, it had already lost quite a lot of
its importance and more than likely a fair amount of its population,
since the Assyrian capital had been transferred to Dur Sharrukin
(modern Khorsabad) in 710 BCE. Kalhu was abandoned after its
destruction and the uncared-for adobe tiles used in its construction
fast formed a tell (ruin-mound typical of the ANE sites).
> > Now Prophets - which do include the 1 and 2 Kings, were written and
> > edited between 586-200 BCE,
>
> HOW does anyone know that? Please present the physical evidence which makes
> that knowledge or even probable instead of conjecture or faith.
If you REALLY think I have the time and energy to give you Biblical
Exegetics 101 you better have another think coming.
Suffice it to say, we CAN (despite your claims) recognize
chronodialects in Biblical Hebrew, correlate the themes with the known
historical situations and the psychological reaction to them. Bearing
all of the above in mind, it is plain to anyone who actually bothers
studying the texts in the original Hebrew when they must have been
written, what prompted their writing and what purpose they served for
their original audience
The 1 and 2 of Kings (together with Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and
2 Samuel) form what in research is called the Deuteronomistic History.
The historical setting of this collection is the reaffirmation of the
ethnic Jewish identity in Exile. From the linguistic factors
(chronodialect in the texts) we can surmise the latest redaction,
which would fall to around 200 BCE, and the historical context and
thematics point to the earliest possible writing date being after the
Exile, 586 BCE. The continuous theme is the history of the nation, its
relationship to Yahweh, and why the Exile happened, stressing the
changes in national relationship to Yahweh and the results from these
changes The redactors see the Exile as punishment for a disobedient
nation, and look to the history to see why this happened. It also is a
call to repent and have Yahweh to restore the covenant.
So in short, the physical evidence for the writing is in the texts
themselves, but you do need to be able to read them in the original to
find the evidence.
[snip]
> No one knows when it was buried.
>
> > When Layard excavated the site, his dig
> > reports (though not on par with modern archaelogical dig reports) do
> > not mention any disturbance of the site.
>
> Why would he mention he did not know was of importance? Would he care even if
> it were? If your answer is yes, please tell me the basis for yes.
How we know when it was buried, is explained above. As for Layard's
report, even though he was more of an antiquarian and not an
archaelologist, even an antiquarian would have been hard pressed not
to notice evidence for later occupation, as each occupation does leave
distinctive layers. Layard in his book, Nineveh and its Remains,
documents every single find he ever made, and the lack of Persian,
Hellenistic or Roman objects is highly significant.
> > From that we can surmise that
> > the Black Obelisk had lain undisturbed ever since the Medes torched
> > the city, and it was abandoned.
>
> Can't get there from a lack of mention when there were ZERO protocols and no
> archaeologists.
Yes we can, and I have already explained how.
> > So where did your Septuagint writers
> > got their access to the Black Obelisk, and where did they learn how to
> > read Akkadian? Let me assure you that even though the two languages
> > are related, you simply cannot understand Akkadian if you know only
> > Hebrew - or Aramaic for that matter.
>
> I have only said they used old names as historical fantasy writers do today. I
> have no idea where they got the names. I did not say it was from this
> inscription. I clearly indicated it is no different from the Land of Oz. There
> is no basis for saying it was in fact buried. There is no basis for saying it
> was the ONLY use of the name in any inscription. It is so far off the mark from
> the inscription you can't really say it is from a source relating the same event.
Land of Oz does not mention ancient names who are attested from
several independent sources, such as Omri, as I have already
established.
> You are trying to argue to a conclusion. That is a logical fallacy.
Au contraire, you are the one who is trying to argue your conclusion,
that there never was a historical Israel. I have now in several posts
shown why your hypothesis is incorrect, as all the historical evidence
I have presented supports its existence.
[snip]
> > Did I mention something about 'Jehu, son of Omri'? I seem to think I
> > did.
>
> And it is not Yehu son of Samaria? More like Yehu the Samarian? And you
> repudiate those who say it means, Yehu of the house of Omri. Ever think about
> what it might be translated if no one ever heard of the Septuagint? And pray
> tell in the OT which son of MR was named YH? (J is relatively modern letter to
> use.)
No. Samaria in Assyrian texts is Samerina, and regarding what I have
already told you about Cuneiform script, it does have the vowels
attached. So hu-um-ri-i cannot be mangled into Samerina, no matter
what you try.
I also explained to you what the 'mar' in Assyrian references to kings
usually means. יְהוּא yh' simply transliterates as Yehu, a successor
of Omri, and described by the Assyrians as Yehu, son of Omri.
> > Since both rulers are attested in both the Bible and Assyrian
> > texts as kings of Israel (as is Ahab of the land of Israel [a-ha-ab-
> > bu {mat} si-ri-la-a]),
>
> si-ri-la-al interesting. What makes that Israel instead of Syria?
It is NOT si-ri-la-al. If you look carefully, the last character is
[ and not l. It is si-ri-la-a.
The name 'Syria', is a much later Roman name for the district, and
comes from the word 'Assyria'. The Assyrians themselves had no name
for the region that comprises modern Syria, their texts always refer
to the kings, dynasties and cities.
> In any event you have to show biblical Israel, Israel as described in the
> Septuagint, not merely that some place was called that. I ALWAYS say BIBLICAL
> Israel in these discussions although I do not repeat it every time. If it is not
> as described in the bible then it was just a name used for inspiration for a
> grandiose fantasy.
While I quite agree with Silberman and Finkelstein that the golden-age
United Kingdom of David and Solomon probably never existed, and that
Israel and Judah were from the beginning separate kingdoms, the
evidence for their existence is there, and I have just presented some
of it. My not being an archaeologist, I'm not really qualified to deal
with that side of it, but I can give it a go if necessary.
> > it is independently corroborated historical
> > evidence - and if I do have the time to really go digging at the
> > original Assyrian texts, I can find quite a few references to Israel
> > and Judah.
>
> Please do but remember they have to be as described in the bible. The names of
> sheep stations used as inspiration need not apply.
Jerusalem was a major city and not precisely a sheep station. The
following text is from Sennacherib himself (the Taylor prism):
"Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came
up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I
took 46 of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which
were scattered about, I took and plundered a countless number. From
these places I took and carried off 200,156 persons, old and young,
male and female, together with horses and mules, asses and camels,
oxen and sheep, a countless multitude; and Hezekiah himself I shut up
in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers
round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the
gates, so as to prevent escape... Then upon Hezekiah there fell the
fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the
elders of Jerusalem with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver,
and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty... All these things
were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government."
And if this is not like described in the Bible, I really don't know
what is.
> > Here's a free hint: find out about the Lachis ostraca and
> > the Sennacherib orthostats from Nineveh.
>
> Produce the exact quotes and show me. You must know what they are else you
> would not have mentioned them. This is not setting the bar too high. It is the
> bar the believers set for themselves.
Again, what believers? And since you seem so keen on disproving
history, are you actually afraid of looking at some of the evidence?
That is why I said find out about them, if you dare.
[snip]
>
> > On the other hand, your argument is close to saying that because
> > Napoleon is mentioned in both British and French texts, he must
> > actually be a figment of the imagination of a 20th century French
> > writer who is trying to build an imaginary past.
>
> And I see you as saying Horatio Hornblower was a real person because the
> context of the story was vaguely as described in the stories.
We are talking about specific persons here. I do not recall Horatio
Hornblower mentioned in late 18th-early 19th century texts, but
personages such as Omri, Yehu and Hezekiah are, as shown.
> Do not think this is anything special. I point out Homer's Iliad is fiction for
> very similar reasons. But there they are closer in that they actually have a
> city of the right age. Their problem is that it is too small at that time to
> have been Ilium. Therefore at best that city was the inspiration for an epic
> poem and people get upset with the idea that there is poetic license taken in a
> poem. Until an Ilium which is as described in the Iliad the story is fantasy. So
> also with Israel.
>
> But please post the EXACT quotes you find which support either Ysrael or Yudeh
> as described in the Septuagint before the Septuagint.
See the Sennacherib quote above.
> As with people who have a problem with an epic poem taking poetic license I
> really have a problem with people insisting that a book of magic describes real
> events as long as the most obvious magic is removed.
I am decidedly NOT a Bible believer, but since all the evidence shows
that the places, and some of the persons mentioned it existed when it
says they did, I do give it some historical credibility. Just not to
any miraculous, religious or ideological claims.
> If you can make the case fine but realize we have to rewrite the entire history
> of the development of literary forms because everything we now attribute to the
> Greeks was really invented by the Jews who invented nothing else and taught the
> Greeks all they knew about new literary forms.
Ever read even earlier literary forms? Such as Sumerian or Assyrian/
Babylonian? I can assure you, literature was alive and kicking in ANE.
For example, it is quite easy to show how much the tale of Deucalion
owes to the common ANE legend of the flood, preserved in the Noah tale
of the Bible, Artahasis and Gilgamesh of Mesopotamia.
> > - Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do skyscrapers! -
>
> Could you move a mountain or was that just PR?
My sig indicates my opinion of the dangers of absolute faith in any
religion or quasi-religion. The reference - as should be obvious - is
to 9/11. Do not read into it more than it says.
Dragonblaze
- Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do to skyscrapers!
-
Dragonblaze
> > On Apr 30, 9:59 pm, Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> >> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> >> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> >> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> >> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
> > I have a feeling that matt and its straw puppet have been outed in yet
> > another field
>
> I am still awaiting for YOUR physical evidence in support of any person or
> event of significance found in the Septuagint. I also await YOUR physical
> evidence of anything older than the Septuagint which tells these stories.
See my previous posts - I'm not bloody going to type all that again.
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
> > On 30 Apr, 04:16, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Dragonblaze wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> You have yet to show there are more than two letters in the spelling of MR.
> >> What you did do was show how imaginary the translation of an unknown word.
> > First off, the signs are hu, um, ri, and i. There is nothing imaginary
> > about that, and that IS the original Akkadian spelling. If you
> > actually could understand that there is a world of a difference
> > between Hebrew and Akkadian writing, this would be a little easier.
> > Learning to read Akkadian might help to get rid of your fantasy. Or
> > even taking a look at a sign list:
> >http://www.sumerisches-glossar.de/download/SignListNeoAssyrian.pdf
>
> How does that forcefit into MR in Phoenician for Omri? From where comes the
> fantasy that "israel" was referred to as the "house of omri" just because that
> is the only way to make it relate?
Already explained in a previous post.
> What does any of this have to do with what is related as fact in the Septuagint?
See my LONG post of this date, it is clearly explained there, using
clear evidence.
[snip]
> > What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
> > religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
>
> > And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> > absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> > sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> > Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
>
> You are running off a lot about this but there is no mention of Israel on the
> inscription nor do it recount any event related in the Septuagint.
Just posted a few - and one of them, the Sennacherib one is VERY
specific.
> I have no opinion on any historical Israel or Judea except to CORRECTLY observe
> there is no physical evidence for any biblical Israel nor is there any evidence
> of any Judea until after the Septuagint appears.
Sennacherib then was a contemporary of the LXX? I don't think so.
> If in fact you can produce physical evidence which contradicts those
> observations please feel free to discuss it.
Already done.
> Tradition is not evidence. The Septuagint and the later "hebrew" version are
> both without provenance. No one knows where they came from and there is no
> physical evidence for the existence of any people who might have been recording
> the people or events in them. There is nothing but pious tradition which has no
> foundation in fact.
Sennacherib's prism and the Mesha Stele, I assure you, are NO
tradition. They are hard, archaeological evidence.
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
>
> One more thing. There are exactly two mentions in antiquity that the Septuagint
> is a translation of something older.
>
> The first is the forged letter of Aristeas from the early 1st c. The second
> mention is by Josephus late in the 1st c. citing the earlier letter as the
> authority.
>
> What more do you need to know?
The date of when the LXX was translated is irrelevant to my argument
that we have some of the Biblical personages and situations verified
by independent contemporary sources. What more do YOU need to know?
Dragonblaze
- Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do to skyscrapers!
-
Martin Edwards
The Israel referred to in the stele is a person. He was believed to be
the /Urvater/ of the Palestine Syrians. This is not at all the same
thing as evidence of the Kingdom of Israel as described in the OT.
Martin Edwards
You wasted your time typing it at all. Believe me, I sympathise. You
see the tiniest speck of evidence refracted through the prism of your
childhood indoctrination. It took me a long time to kick this habit,
way after I ceased to be a Christian.
Martin Edwards
> In message <cbd712f5-c878-41c0...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> Dragonblaze <drago...@apexmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What bleeding believers? I'm an agnostic with no religion or quasi-
>> religion whatsoever. So I'm afraid you have struck out once again.
>
> Yes, but Dragonblaze! You don't agree with Matt the Pratt, so ergo you are
> irrational, a misguided religionist and entirely lacking in education.
>
> I'm surprised you haven't realised that for yourself. Repent and become a
> sycophant (or a sock puppet) like Martin and you will be able to bask in the
> sunshine of Matt the Pratt's approbation.
>
> Ken Down
>
Martin Edwards
Matt Giwer
...
> The Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), Mesha erected the
> stone roughly about 850 BCE:
http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/moab-comment.html
The problem with the Moabite Stone
by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [Oct 29]
This is the Moabite Stone translation.
Picture of the Moabite Stone
The problem with it is very simple. It has no provenance. No one knows where it
was found or when it was found or when or who created it. This is an
insurmountable problem making the entire find worth no more than a curiosity. It
could have been made a few days before it was offered for sale for all we know.
Matt Giwer
> In message <481813d4$0$12967$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>> 1. The Black Obelisk is of Shalmaneser III, not II.
>> There ain't but one obelisk.
> 1. Egypt is full of them.
Is your grasp of english so poor you cannot comprehend context?
> 2. If, however, you are referring to the obelisk which mentions Jehu, it is
> of Shalmaneser III, not II.
> Duck, weave and obfuscate how you will, yet again you have been shown to be
> an ignorant prat.
I was referring to the difference between the son of Omri on the inscription as
compared to the son of Hanani in 1Kings16.
Matt Giwer
> On 1 May, 05:59, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>> One more thing. There are exactly two mentions in antiquity that the Septuagint
>> is a translation of something older.
>> The first is the forged letter of Aristeas from the early 1st c. The second
>> mention is by Josephus late in the 1st c. citing the earlier letter as the
>> authority.
>> What more do you need to know?
> The date of when the LXX was translated is irrelevant to my argument
> that we have some of the Biblical personages and situations verified
> by independent contemporary sources. What more do YOU need to know?
The question is not when any translation occurred. The question if which is the
translation.
As you see there is NO credible source for the claim the Septuagint is the
translation.
Matt Giwer
>>> This is what you said, and I quote "How desperate do you have to be to
>>> claim two names, YH and KHMR, not MR for Omri, as there are no vowels
>>> in the inscription."
>> vowels in the Phoenician believers claim is early Hebrew.
> עמרי (can't find paleo-Hebrew font)
Use Phoenician as it is not distinguishable from Phoenician. Those who claim
there is a difference determine that difference by reading the bible to see
whether or not it claim Judeans ruled there. That is what we call circular
reasoning.
Slight differences in letter shapes are meaningless. <img
src="http://www.giwersworld.org/images/gs.jpg"> are the same letter and both
shapes are in use today.
See also
http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/inscriptions/hebrew-inscriptions.html
http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/phoenician/hebrew-phoenician-compare.html
> actually transliterates as 'mry,
> not MR. The ' in the transliteration stands for 'ayin, which indicates
> the presence of a vowel at the beginning of the word. So we get
> (o)mry, the last yod being always a vowel, and pronounced as i. And
> yes, there are vowels in the beginning of the words, alef and ayin -
> as anyone who has ever studied Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic or Ugaritic
> knows. Moreover, the Mesha stele is not in Hebrew, but in Moabite, but
> the same rules apply.
Lot of words, how do you get there without arguing to the conclusion that it is
the bible story? Close names do not count.
1 Kings, chapter 16 1: Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani
against Baasha, saying,
2: Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my
people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my
people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;
Maybe it is a different Jehu. The inscription is certainly not related to Jehu
son of Omri which is on the inscription.
> [snip}
>> Â Â Â Â But can you divine the house of omri really means Israel? If so, how? And if
>> not, where does the inscription mention a significant person or event in the
>> Septuagint?
> That is very easy. The Assyrian texts usually refer to minor rulers as
> being son of this and that person, in this case of Omri. Literal
> sonship is seldom indicated, I have translated it literally as 'son
> of', but more correct usage would be 'of the house of Omri'.
If it is a minor ruler then it is contrary to the Septuagint and as such does
not support the bible claims.
> Since we know - as I have demonstrated - Omri is explicitly referred
> to as the king of Israel (see again my reply to Martin Edwards for the
> text of the Mesha Stele) and the Bible. Now, as the Black Obelisk of
> Shalmaneser III mentions one ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transliterated as
> Yehu mar Omri (and I explained in an earlier post that Akkadian has no
> vowel O and that O is usually written with the sign 'hu') we end up
> with one Yehu of the house of Omri, king of Israel.
I do not see any king reference at all. But it is certainly not biblical Israel.
> [snip]
>>> Let's see... The Black Obelisk was erected in 825 BCE,
>> and Kalhu was
>>> destroyed 612 BCE.The Black Obelisk was discovered in 1846.
>> Â Â Â Â Discovered in modern times. We have no idea when it was lost to public
>> knowledge. It could have been in 1746. Or maybe never and buried when the locals
>> found the foolish Christians were willing to pay money to dig things up. It is
>> not like there were any protocols at all in 1846 much less archaeologists. They
>> were all bible thumpers expecting to find nothing but confirmation of the
>> Septuagint.
> But we do know that, unfortunately for your argument. As I mentioned
> above, Kalhu was completely destroyed in 612 BCE. Have you ever seen
> what happens to an ancient city built of wood and adobe tiles when it
> is burnt? The walls collapse, burying everything underneath them.
> Moreover, when Kalhu was destroyed, it had already lost quite a lot of
> its importance and more than likely a fair amount of its population,
> since the Assyrian capital had been transferred to Dur Sharrukin
> (modern Khorsabad) in 710 BCE. Kalhu was abandoned after its
> destruction and the uncared-for adobe tiles used in its construction
> fast formed a tell (ruin-mound typical of the ANE sites).
As I said we do not know when it was buried. It does not matter in the least
the location in which is was found. Without protocols and without archaeologists
and an unknown degree of fanaticism to confirm the bible stories but certainly
with confirmation of it as the only expectation we know nothing.
Keep in mind after proper protocols and the scientific method produce real
archaeologists bible related finds ceased to be made. All of the finds are
pre-scientific digging and no protocols.
>>> Now Prophets - which do include the 1 and 2 Kings, were written and
>>> edited between 586-200 BCE,
>> Â Â Â Â HOW does anyone know that? Please present the physical evidence which makes
>> that knowledge or even probable instead of conjecture or faith.
> If you REALLY think I have the time and energy to give you Biblical
> Exegetics 101 you better have another think coming.
I said PHYSICAL EVIDENCE not EXEGETICS. Physical evidence is the only thing of
interest. With physical evidence we have reconstructed many ancient
civilizations. With it we have shown the bible got nothing right about Egypt
even though the first century of people going there were convinced they would
find the one described in Genesis and Exodus.
Similar one expunges all bible-based expectations and "guidance" when looking
in bibleland and in fact we do find something entirely different from the bible.
We find primitive farmers are goatherds instead of powerful kingdoms.
> Suffice it to say, we CAN (despite your claims) recognize
> chronodialects in Biblical Hebrew, correlate the themes with the known
> historical situations and the psychological reaction to them. Bearing
> all of the above in mind, it is plain to anyone who actually bothers
> studying the texts in the original Hebrew when they must have been
> written, what prompted their writing and what purpose they served for
> their original audience
It is amazing the mental masturbation one has to do to get past the obvious
total absence of physical evidence. Gotta love "chronogialectics" when you can't
even show when the Hebrew version first appears.
> The 1 and 2 of Kings (together with Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and
> 2 Samuel) form what in research is called the Deuteronomistic History.
> The historical setting of this collection is the reaffirmation of the
> ethnic Jewish identity in Exile. From the linguistic factors
> (chronodialect in the texts) we can surmise the latest redaction,
> which would fall to around 200 BCE, and the historical context and
> thematics point to the earliest possible writing date being after the
> Exile, 586 BCE. The continuous theme is the history of the nation, its
> relationship to Yahweh, and why the Exile happened, stressing the
> changes in national relationship to Yahweh and the results from these
> changes The redactors see the Exile as punishment for a disobedient
> nation, and look to the history to see why this happened. It also is a
> call to repent and have Yahweh to restore the covenant.
To repeat there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for any exile to any place at any time.
You can surmise and guess and extrapolate all you want but all you are doing is
trying to explain away the absence of physical evidence.
> So in short, the physical evidence for the writing is in the texts
> themselves, but you do need to be able to read them in the original to
> find the evidence.
Sorry that is not what physical evidence means. Physical evidence is what it is
in science and law. It is something tangible. You are talking about what the law
would call testimony to the evidence. In science a hypothesis regarding the
evidence. It is far from the only or the simplest hypothesis. A valid hypothesis
_has to_ include the fact that there is no evidence for Biblical Israel or
Biblical Judea. It also must account for Herodotus and Alexander in the failure
to mention or act like there were any such people as described in the Septuagint.
Only the words themselves are evidence. What believers find in bible words is a
constant source of amazement at the powers of the human imagination.
Some people like to find a developing language in the imagined dates for the
composition of the various pieces of it. As opposed to that the Septuagint is
quite clearly a single document written at one time.
Shakespeare was translated a play at a time into German over a long period of
time in different parts of Germany with different dialects and with deliberately
different translations based upon what worked with previous audiences. If we put
all of the original translations into German that collection will look the like
the "hebrew" version and the original English portfolio will look like the
Septuagint. But because of religion the "hebrew" version which is first
mentioned more than a century after the Septuagint is first mentioned is
considered the original. That is like assuming the German translations are the
original.
In any event go back to my original post starting this thread. There was no
Hebrew to translate it from at the time the Septuagint appears. It is oddly
difficult to find exactly what people are talking about when they say Hebrew.
When someone says old English there are plenty of examples of it in the form of
images. When it comes to Hebrew over time it is an entirely different matter.
> [snip]
>> Â Â Â Â No one knows when it was buried.
>>> When Layard excavated the site, his dig
>>> reports (though not on par with modern archaelogical dig reports) do
>>> not mention any disturbance of the site.
>> Â Â Â Â Why would he mention he did not know was of importance?
>> Would he care even if
>> it were? If your answer is yes, please tell me the basis for yes.
> How we know when it was buried, is explained above.
The age of the quarry at Piltdown does not date the bones that were found.
> As for Layard's
> report, even though he was more of an antiquarian and not an
> archaelologist, even an antiquarian would have been hard pressed not
> to notice evidence for later occupation, as each occupation does leave
> distinctive layers. Layard in his book, Nineveh and its Remains,
> documents every single find he ever made, and the lack of Persian,
> Hellenistic or Roman objects is highly significant.
In 1892 an English visitor to Palestine published a pamphlet on his trip. He
visited the Jordan river and the Dead Sea. He solemnly assured his readers that
the sacred Jordan flowed into the ground rather than emptying into the Dead Sea.
Inventing BS is clearly worst than simply not mentioning the dirt was disturbed.
He had a great find. Why call it into question with the facts? As I said, not a
scientist and NO PROTOCOLS had been established at the time. Why is it assumed
he even dug it up? Because he said so? Like the statement about the Jordan river?
And I did not make any statement that this was the only possible source of a
possibly similar name but you are making that assumption. On what basis?
>>> From that we can surmise that
>>> the Black Obelisk had lain undisturbed ever since the Medes torched
>>> the city, and it was abandoned.
>> Â Â Â Â Can't get there from a lack of mention when there were ZERO protocols and no
>> archaeologists.
> Yes we can, and I have already explained how.
I do not think you understand how different archaeology is from the diggers who
tore through anything they found discarding everything that was not of immediate
importance to them at the time.
>>> So where did your Septuagint writers
>>> got their access to the Black Obelisk, and where did they learn how to
>>> read Akkadian? Let me assure you that even though the two languages
>>> are related, you simply cannot understand Akkadian if you know only
>>> Hebrew - or Aramaic for that matter.
>> Â Â Â Â I have only said they used old names as historical fantasy writers do today. I
>> have no idea where they got the names. I did not say it was from this
>> inscription. I clearly indicated it is no different from the Land of Oz. There
>> is no basis for saying it was in fact buried. There is no basis for saying it
>> was the ONLY use of the name in any inscription. It is so far off the mark from
>> the inscription you can't really say it is from a source relating the same event.
> Land of Oz does not mention ancient names who are attested from
> several independent sources, such as Omri, as I have already
> established.
I disagree that you have established omri.
--
Is it legitimate to ask why the only country that was friendly to apartheid
South Africa was Israel or is that an antisemitic question?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3978
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Matt Giwer
> On 1 May, 04:41, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>>> On 30 Apr, 04:16, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> You have yet to show there are more than two letters in the spelling of MR.
>>>> What you did do was show how imaginary the translation of an unknown word.
>>> First off, the signs are hu, um, ri, and i. There is nothing imaginary
>>> about that, and that IS the original Akkadian spelling. If you
>>> actually could understand that there is a world of a difference
>>> between Hebrew and Akkadian writing, this would be a little easier.
>>> Learning to read Akkadian might help to get rid of your fantasy. Or
>>> even taking a look at a sign list:
>>> http://www.sumerisches-glossar.de/download/SignListNeoAssyrian.pdf
>> How does that forcefit into MR in Phoenician for Omri? From where comes the
>> fantasy that "israel" was referred to as the "house of omri" just because that
>> is the only way to make it relate?
> Already explained in a previous post.
All I see is something that passes the believer's threshold of anything being
good enough. I do not see any biblical Israel in it. Nor do I see the Septuagint
version of the story. Nor is it clear anyone could make this translation without
using the Septuagint as a guide.
>> What does any of this have to do with what is related as fact in the Septuagint?
>
> See my LONG post of this date, it is clearly explained there, using
> clear evidence.
The problem with the Moabite Stone
by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [Oct 29]
This is the Moabite Stone translation.
Picture of the Moabite Stone
The problem with it is very simple. It has no provenance. No one knows where it
was found or when it was found or when or who created it. This is an
insurmountable problem making the entire find worth no more than a curiosity. It
could have been made a few days before it was offered for sale for all we know.
--
You can always trust a Zionist to be a Zionist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3996
Matt Giwer
The problem with the Moabite Stone
by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [Oct 29]
This is the Moabite Stone translation.
Picture of the Moabite Stone
The problem with it is very simple. It has no provenance. No one knows where it
was found or when it was found or when or who created it. This is an
insurmountable problem making the entire find worth no more than a curiosity. It
could have been made a few days before it was offered for sale for all we know.
--
The leading cause of suicide in the US is military service.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3991
Martin Edwards
>
> Do not think this is anything special. I point out Homer's Iliad is
> fiction for very similar reasons. But there they are closer in that they
> actually have a city of the right age. Their problem is that it is too
> small at that time to have been Ilium. Therefore at best that city was
> the inspiration for an epic poem and people get upset with the idea that
> there is poetic license taken in a poem. Until an Ilium which is as
> described in the Iliad the story is fantasy. So also with Israel.
>
it was probably not urban in the modern sense. Where Schliemann was
almost certainly wrong was that the level he picked was too old.
Kendall K. Down
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The point being precisely that neither Israel or Judah are mentioned in
> the cited academic fields.
The point being that genuine scholars and academics are quite satisfied that
Israel and Judah are well represented in the documents that have come down
to us, so you and your hero Matt the Pratt are out on a limb that is not
attached to any tree.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Martin Edwards
> Dragonblaze wrote:
>
> One more thing. There are exactly two mentions in antiquity that the
> Septuagint is a translation of something older.
>
> The first is the forged letter of Aristeas from the early 1st c. The
> second mention is by Josephus late in the 1st c. citing the earlier
> letter as the authority.
>
> What more do you need to know?
>
the Jews felt the need to have new translation. There must have been a
text in some other language. Whether it was Hebrew, or whether there
was such a language is a moot point. Our young posters should realize
that, when such matters are discussed by academics, the discussion is
adult. There is no "sucks boo" invective.
Dragonblaze
[snip]
Excuse me? Are you talking about the Merneptah or the Mesha Stele?
If it is the Merneptah, it is impossible to intrepret it in that way,
as the significant portion of it reads:
"The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is laid waste; its seed is not,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day."
From this it is very easy to see that these are areas or peoples. Or
are you trying to claim that Ashkelon and Gezer (known cities) are
some mythical persons instead?
If you are talking about the Mesha Stele, מלך ישראל, mlk 'shrl, means
exactly 'king of Israel'. Bit difficult to trying to read it as 'king
of an eponymous person' - which would be clear if you actually could
read ANY of the West Semitic languages in the original, and bothered
to do a bit of basic research.
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
> > On 1 May, 04:43, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> >> George wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 9:59 pm, Dragonblaze <dragonbl...@apexmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> And if we should talk about faith-heads, what should we say about your
> >>>> absolute belief that there was no historical Israel or Judah? I
> >>>> sincerely suggest you try reading a bit on the ANE history,
> >>>> Assyriology, Egyptology and the archaeology of the Ancient Near East.
> >>> I have a feeling that matt and its straw puppet have been outed in yet
> >>> another field
> >> I am still awaiting for YOUR physical evidence in support of any person or
> >> event of significance found in the Septuagint. I also await YOUR physical
> >> evidence of anything older than the Septuagint which tells these stories.
>
> > See my previous posts - I'm not bloody going to type all that again.
>
> > Dragonblaze
>
> > - Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do to skyscrapers!
> > -
>
> You wasted your time typing it at all. Believe me, I sympathise. You
> see the tiniest speck of evidence refracted through the prism of your
> childhood indoctrination. It took me a long time to kick this habit,
> way after I ceased to be a Christian.
Kindly quit insulting me. I am interested only in historical evidence
- which I have and can provide - and not pandering to someone who's
rejection of childhood values (while understandable) has driven him to
utter irrational rejection and denial of any real evidence for the
issues he wishes to negate.
Dragonblaze
> Dragonblaze wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > The Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), Mesha erected the
> > stone roughly about 850 BCE:
>
> http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/moab-comment.html
>
> The problem with the Moabite Stone
> by Matt Giwer, © 2007 [Oct 29]
>
> This is the Moabite Stone translation.
>
> Picture of the Moabite Stone
>
> The problem with it is very simple. It has no provenance. No one knows where it
> was found or when it was found or when or who created it. This is an
> insurmountable problem making the entire find worth no more than a curiosity. It
> could have been made a few days before it was offered for sale for all we know.
Incorrect. It was discovered at the ancient Dibon (the capital of
Moab) now Dhiban, Jordan, in August 1868, by Rev. F. A. Klein, a
German missionary in Jerusalem.
Besides, since the script is paleo-Hebrew and the language Moabite,
which differs from Biblical Hebrew quite significantly, it would take
an unbelievably clever forger to have been able to carve this "a few
days before it was offered for sale."
My surmise is, this is a genuine ancient artifact, for the above
mentioned reasons.
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> > actually transliterates as 'mry,
> > not MR. The ' in the transliteration stands for 'ayin, which indicates
> > the presence of a vowel at the beginning of the word. So we get
> > (o)mry, the last yod being always a vowel, and pronounced as i. And
> > yes, there are vowels in the beginning of the words, alef and ayin -
> > as anyone who has ever studied Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic or Ugaritic
> > knows. Moreover, the Mesha stele is not in Hebrew, but in Moabite, but
> > the same rules apply.
>
> Lot of words, how do you get there without arguing to the conclusion that it is
> the bible story? Close names do not count.
Did you actually compare the Mesha text with the Biblical account of
the same incident? The match is too exact to be a coincidence. That
the Biblical account mentions Jehoram, who was Omri's grandson, it not
a problem. In modern English, the word “son” typically refers to a
male child in relation to his parents. In the ancient Near East,
however, the word was commonly used to mean male descendent.
Consequently, “son of Omri” was a common designation for any male
descendent of Omri and would have been used to refer to Jehoram. That
“son” means “descendent,” an interpretation consistent with the common
use of language in the ancient Near East, the Mesha Stele and the
Bible are consistent.
> 1 Kings, chapter 16 1: Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani
> against Baasha, saying,
> 2: Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my
> people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my
> people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;
>
> Maybe it is a different Jehu. The inscription is certainly not related to Jehu
> son of Omri which is on the inscription.
Jehu is not mentioned in the Mesha Stele. And the one in the Black
Obelisk is a ruler, which the Jehu you mention is not.
[snip}
> > That is very easy. The Assyrian texts usually refer to minor rulers as
> > being son of this and that person, in this case of Omri. Literal
> > sonship is seldom indicated, I have translated it literally as 'son
> > of', but more correct usage would be 'of the house of Omri'.
>
> If it is a minor ruler then it is contrary to the Septuagint and as such does
> not support the bible claims.
Minor ruler from the _Assyrian_ point of view. Assyria was an empire
and ruled over a lot of land and different peoples, which Israel never
did. Assyrian kings were quite dismissive about kingdoms they saw as
minor - which is very clear from Assyrian texts. The Bible, having
been written by the people of Israel and Judah, naturally treats their
rulers as very significant.
I'm somewhat surprised I _have_ to point such a self-evident thing
out.
> > Since we know - as I have demonstrated - Omri is explicitly referred
> > to as the king of Israel (see again my reply to Martin Edwards for the
> > text of the Mesha Stele) and the Bible. Now, as the Black Obelisk of
> > Shalmaneser III mentions one ia-u-a mar hu-um-ri-i, transliterated as
> > Yehu mar Omri (and I explained in an earlier post that Akkadian has no
> > vowel O and that O is usually written with the sign 'hu') we end up
> > with one Yehu of the house of Omri, king of Israel.
>
> I do not see any king reference at all. But it is certainly not biblical Israel.
Then learn to read. מלך ישראל, mlk 'shrl, means 'king of Israel', and
that is in the Mesha stele. Let me quote the exact line again: "Omri
was the king of Israel" - lines 4 and 5 on the stele.
What basis do you have to claim that the Biblical Israel was not
meant?
[snip]
> > But we do know that, unfortunately for your argument. As I mentioned
> > above, Kalhu was completely destroyed in 612 BCE. Have you ever seen
> > what happens to an ancient city built of wood and adobe tiles when it
> > is burnt? The walls collapse, burying everything underneath them.
> > Moreover, when Kalhu was destroyed, it had already lost quite a lot of
> > its importance and more than likely a fair amount of its population,
> > since the Assyrian capital had been transferred to Dur Sharrukin
> > (modern Khorsabad) in 710 BCE. Kalhu was abandoned after its
> > destruction and the uncared-for adobe tiles used in its construction
> > fast formed a tell (ruin-mound typical of the ANE sites).
>
> As I said we do not know when it was buried. It does not matter in the least
> the location in which is was found. Without protocols and without archaeologists
> and an unknown degree of fanaticism to confirm the bible stories but certainly
> with confirmation of it as the only expectation we know nothing.
Then explain why Layard does not mention any non-Assyrian artifacts
found, as every consequent inhabitation phase certainly leaves
artifacts behind.
[snip]
> I said PHYSICAL EVIDENCE not EXEGETICS. Physical evidence is the only thing > of
> interest. With physical evidence we have reconstructed many ancient
> civilizations. With it we have shown the bible got nothing right about Egypt
> even though the first century of people going there were convinced they would
> find the one described in Genesis and Exodus.
Genesis and Exodus are completely legendary - though one bit in them
_might_ refer to a real historical event, as we do know that people
from the Levant tended to wander in and out of Egypt - but this is a
side issue, which I will not deal with here.
Okay, Archaeology of Israel then. As I have mentioned before, that I'm
not an archaeologist, but even I am quite aware of a few things.
There are quite a few seal and bullae finds - in archaeological
context - mentioning specific personages of Israel and Judah in the
Bible. A typical example would be, Shema Servant of Jeroboam." This
one was found in Megiddo, which was one of Jeroboam II's strongholds.
Even more interesting is the one that says, "Baruch ben-Neriah the
Scribe." This person is mentioned in Jeremiah 36:32.
The presence of these bullae often associates the person mentioned in
the Bible often to the place where he is alleged to be in the Bible,
giving quite good evidence that some incidents of the Bible are
historically correct.
This does not, of course, validate the entire Bible, just the later,
somewhat historical parts of it. And even then we must always remember
that the bias of the writers must be dismissed.
Sure, you can create your own little conspiracy theory of working
archaeologists gleefully forging these bullae, but I'm afraid that
really would be grasping at the straws.
> Similar one expunges all bible-based expectations and "guidance" when looking
> in bibleland and in fact we do find something entirely different from the bible.
> We find primitive farmers are goatherds instead of powerful kingdoms.
Megiddo, Hazor, Jerusalem, Mizpah - not precisely pastoral nomadic
cities. You must also take the "powerful kingdoms" claim of the Bible
in context. When the Bible writers speak of powerful kingdoms, they
mean local power, such as Judah, Israel, Edom, Moab and Damascus had -
at least as long as Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia allowed them their
local power.
> > Suffice it to say, we CAN (despite your claims) recognize
> > chronodialects in Biblical Hebrew, correlate the themes with the known
> > historical situations and the psychological reaction to them. Bearing
> > all of the above in mind, it is plain to anyone who actually bothers
> > studying the texts in the original Hebrew when they must have been
> > written, what prompted their writing and what purpose they served for
> > their original audience
>
> It is amazing the mental masturbation one has to do to get past the obvious
> total absence of physical evidence. Gotta love "chronogialectics" when you can't
> even show when the Hebrew version first appears.
Which shows you do not understand the first thing about linguistics.
We cannot show when Homer first appears either, but any fool (possbily
excepting you) knows its Greek is very different from later Greek.
This is what is called a chronodialect. Were I to use your illogic, I
could simply claim that Homer was written by the Greeks during the
Turkish occupation to create this new national identity. It's just
that I know better to be so silly.
The same happens in the texts I'm most familiar with: distinguishing
Old Assyrian from Neo-Assyrian is very easy - once you know how the
language has developed and have read a few texts in both dialects.
When it comes to the Bible, if you read the books of Amos, Job and
Daniel in the original, you can see how different the language is in
each. Using this same technique, we can also see how the books have
been redacted, edited, added to and generally mangled - as the
language can be different even in the same book when a later editor
added to it.
If, as you claim, the LXX would be from one era - and only later
translated into the Masoretic text, these differences in language
would be absent. That they exist is about the best evidence we have of
the long history of the texts.
> > The 1 and 2 of Kings (together with Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and
> > 2 Samuel) form what in research is called the Deuteronomistic History.
> > The historical setting of this collection is the reaffirmation of the
> > ethnic Jewish identity in Exile. From the linguistic factors
> > (chronodialect in the texts) we can surmise the latest redaction,
> > which would fall to around 200 BCE, and the historical context and
> > thematics point to the earliest possible writing date being after the
> > Exile, 586 BCE. The continuous theme is the history of the nation, its
> > relationship to Yahweh, and why the Exile happened, stressing the
> > changes in national relationship to Yahweh and the results from these
> > changes The redactors see the Exile as punishment for a disobedient
> > nation, and look to the history to see why this happened. It also is a
> > call to repent and have Yahweh to restore the covenant.
>
> To repeat there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for any exile to any place at any time.
> You can surmise and guess and extrapolate all you want but all you are doing is
> trying to explain away the absence of physical evidence.
Which I have not done. How about the physical evidence you so crave
present in the original Assyrian texts I have posted? These texts are
not a tradition, they are original sources which have found
archaeologically.
> > So in short, the physical evidence for the writing is in the texts
> > themselves, but you do need to be able to read them in the original to
> > find the evidence.
>
> Sorry that is not what physical evidence means. Physical evidence is what it is
> in science and law. It is something tangible. You are talking about what the law
> would call testimony to the evidence. In science a hypothesis regarding the
> evidence. It is far from the only or the simplest hypothesis. A valid hypothesis
> _has to_ include the fact that there is no evidence for Biblical Israel or
> Biblical Judea. It also must account for Herodotus and Alexander in the failure
> to mention or act like there were any such people as described in the Septuagint.
How come the Assyrians and Babylonians are very aware of their
existence? Read that Sennacherib cylinder text again.
And before you claim that it must have been known to the writers of
hundreds of years later, these cylinders were reports to the gods, and
typically buried in the foundations of a new shrine celebrating the
victory.
And that certainly is not the only Mesopotamian text I can find - but
my argument has already been backed by evidence. You on the other hand
have presented NO evidence whatsoever - just mere assertions.
> Only the words themselves are evidence. What believers find in bible words is a
> constant source of amazement at the powers of the human imagination.
>
> Some people like to find a developing language in the imagined dates for the
> composition of the various pieces of it. As opposed to that the Septuagint is
> quite clearly a single document written at one time.
The LXX, which is a Greek translation shows a single language for the
same reason as any English translation of the text does: it was done
in a single period. When this is not true, as with the Masoretic
Bible, it shows evidence of a long writing period.
[snip]
>
> In any event go back to my original post starting this thread. There was no
> Hebrew to translate it from at the time the Septuagint appears. It is oddly
> difficult to find exactly what people are talking about when they say Hebrew.
> When someone says old English there are plenty of examples of it in the form of
> images. When it comes to Hebrew over time it is an entirely different matter.
We do know when the LXX was translated. Now how about those nagging
little textual finds I have shown before, such as the bullae
mentioning specific individuals?
And what about the silver scrolls from late seventh or early sixth
century BCE, having the Priestly Benediction of Numbers 5:24-26? Mind
you, I'm not trying to claim that Numbers was written that early, as
it is post-Exilic in date, but not so late as LXX either.
[snip]
> >> it were? If your answer is yes, please tell me the basis for yes.
> > How we know when it was buried, is explained above.
>
> The age of the quarry at Piltdown does not date the bones that were found.
Ah, I thought the accusation of forgery might surface. Unfortunately
for you, when the Black Obelisk was found, there was nobody around who
could have forged it. The decipherment of Cuneiform was accomplished
in 1857, whereas Layard found the Black Obelisk in 1848.
> > As for Layard's
> > report, even though he was more of an antiquarian and not an
> > archaelologist, even an antiquarian would have been hard pressed not
> > to notice evidence for later occupation, as each occupation does leave
> > distinctive layers. Layard in his book, Nineveh and its Remains,
> > documents every single find he ever made, and the lack of Persian,
> > Hellenistic or Roman objects is highly significant.
>
> In 1892 an English visitor to Palestine published a pamphlet on his trip. He
> visited the Jordan river and the Dead Sea. He solemnly assured his readers that
> the sacred Jordan flowed into the ground rather than emptying into the Dead Sea.
> Inventing BS is clearly worst than simply not mentioning the dirt was disturbed.
> He had a great find. Why call it into question with the facts? As I said, not a
> scientist and NO PROTOCOLS had been established at the time. Why is it assumed
> he even dug it up? Because he said so? Like the statement about the Jordan river?
See the reply above.
[snip]
> I do not think you understand how different archaeology is from the diggers who
> tore through anything they found discarding everything that was not of immediate
> importance to them at the time.
Schliemann certainly did that with Troy, but we still can distinguish
between the strata there. The same applies to Kalhu, the whole of
which STILL is not been excavated. I think you do not understand how
large a site we are talking about.
> >> have no idea where they got the names. I did not say it was from this
> >> inscription. I clearly indicated it is no different from the Land of Oz. There
> >> is no basis for saying it was in fact buried. There is no basis for saying it
> >> was the ONLY use of the name in any inscription. It is so far off the mark from
> >> the inscription you can't really say it is from a source relating the same event.
> > Land of Oz does not mention ancient names who are attested from
> > several independent sources, such as Omri, as I have already
> > established.
>
> I disagree that you have established omri.
Disagree all you want, but by your own standard of having three
sources to establish a name, I have done this.There are 3 independent
mentions of Omri existing: The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, The
Mesha Stele and the Biblical texts.
I have proven my case by presenting evidence from ancient sources.
What evidence have _you_ presented, apart from outright denial?
Dragonblaze
- Faith does not move mountains, but look what it can do to
skyscrapers! -
Dragonblaze
Already dealt with, so see my long reply.
Dragonblaze
Dragonblaze
[snip]
Hey Matt, you never said anything about the Sennacherib cylinder text
which I posted with the correlating Bible text. How come?
Dragonblaze
PS. Due to Bank Holiday weekend normal service will be resumed on
Tuesday at the earliest - if work does not keep me too busy.
Martin Edwards
> In message <iddSj.1400$I11...@newsfe08.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The point being precisely that neither Israel or Judah are mentioned in
>> the cited academic fields.
>
> The point being that genuine scholars and academics are quite satisfied that
> Israel and Judah are well represented in the documents that have come down
> to us, so you and your hero Matt the Pratt are out on a limb that is not
> attached to any tree.
>
> Ken Down
>
Martin Edwards
Just so. The correct translation is "his seed is no more". It is
difficult to see what "its" would mean in this context. Maybe the grain
supplies?
>
> From this it is very easy to see that these are areas or peoples. Or
> are you trying to claim that Ashkelon and Gezer (known cities) are
> some mythical persons instead?
>
> If you are talking about the Mesha Stele, מלך ישראל, mlk 'shrl, means
> exactly 'king of Israel'. Bit difficult to trying to read it as 'king
> of an eponymous person' - which would be clear if you actually could
> read ANY of the West Semitic languages in the original, and bothered
> to do a bit of basic research.
>
> Dragonblaze
>
> - Faith cannot move mountains, but look what it can do to skyscrapers!
> -
Martin Edwards
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>> One more thing. There are exactly two mentions in antiquity that
>> the Septuagint is a translation of something older.
>> The first is the forged letter of Aristeas from the early 1st c.
>> The second mention is by Josephus late in the 1st c. citing the
>> earlier letter as the authority.
>> What more do you need to know?
> These are fair points but, when the Christians adopted the Septuagint,
> the Jews felt the need to have new translation. There must have been a
> text in some other language.
Why must there have been? I know of no "musts" which might apply.
I have previously shown the Judaism of Josephus is not the Judaism of today as
he says his version has only 22 books. Whatever those were it as not the
Septuagint. But whatever those were may have been used for some of the slight
changes introduced into the Greek version.
Why not simply many people over many years with a varying grasp of the Greek
used in the Septuagint making translations into the developing Hebrew which is
Aramaic in the 1st c. AD? Keep in mind the jewish reputation for scholarship is
VERY recent. An intensive study of the Torah and Talmud cannot distinguish a
person from an expert on the creations of the Brothers Grimm but even that is
relatively recent. There is no such reputation in Roman times, in fact quite the
opposite. So there is no foundation for assuming a comprehensive knowledge of
Greek.
> Whether it was Hebrew, or whether there was such a language is a moot point.
When I see your reasoning as to why you believe this must be true I will be
able to comment further.
> Our young posters should realize
> that, when such matters are discussed by academics, the discussion is
> adult. There is no "sucks boo" invective.
Not for believers preserving the true faith. Juvenile epithets are the only
proper mode of defending the faith.
--
Ten tons of emitted CO2 results in over one
hundred tons of plant life.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3986
Matt Giwer
> On 2 May, 05:15, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> 1 Kings, chapter 16 1: Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani
>> against Baasha, saying,
>> 2: Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my
>> people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my
>> people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;
>> Maybe it is a different Jehu. The inscription is certainly not related to Jehu
>> son of Omri which is on the inscription.
> Jehu is not mentioned in the Mesha Stele. And the one in the Black
> Obelisk is a ruler, which the Jehu you mention is not.
The discussion started with the following. It continued with it.
vvvvv
Commentary on the Obelisk of Shalamanser II
by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [Sep]
This is the translation of the obelisk. You have to go all the way to the bottom
to find the line of interest which is
[2] The tribute of Yahua son of Khumri: silver, gold, bowls of gold, vessels of
gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for the King's hand,
(and) staves: I received.
People want to read Yahua son of Khumri as Yehu son of Omri. If one does not
choose to read it that way the believers are screwed.
This does not mention Israel. So those who claim it does are trying to go from a
peculiar reading of two names so that they names are found in the OT to claiming
it is a mention of Israel. All we have are two names, nothing more.
^^^^^
This does not describe anyone in the bible. As I said, using old names as
inspiration for fiction is still done today.
I did suggest if you wish to discuss something else that you in fact produce
the citation of the words you want to use and how they show a mention of OT
people and/or events.
--
Everything Bush warns will happen if we leave Iraq has already happened
because we went into Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3981
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Do not think this is anything special. I point out Homer's Iliad
>> is fiction for very similar reasons. But there they are closer in that
>> they actually have a city of the right age. Their problem is that it
>> is too small at that time to have been Ilium. Therefore at best that
>> city was the inspiration for an epic poem and people get upset with
>> the idea that there is poetic license taken in a poem. Until an Ilium
>> which is as described in the Iliad the story is fantasy. So also with
>> Israel.
> Recent excavations show a bigger area enclosed by walls, though most of
> it was probably not urban in the modern sense. Where Schliemann was
> almost certainly wrong was that the level he picked was too old.
The last I heard is there were still some believers who were looking for a
larger area surrounded by a wall not that it has been found.
--
You can always trust a Zionist to be a Zionist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3996
Matt Giwer
> On 2 May, 02:59, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>>> On 1 May, 04:41, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Dragonblaze wrote:
>>>> � � � � What does any of this have to do with what is related as fact in the Septuagint?
>>> See my LONG post of this date, it is clearly explained there, using
>>> clear evidence.
>> The problem with the Moabite Stone
>> by Matt Giwer, � 2007 [Oct 29]
>> This is the Moabite Stone translation.
>> Picture of the Moabite Stone
>> The problem with it is very simple. It has no provenance. No one knows where it
>> was found or when it was found or when or who created it. This is an
>> insurmountable problem making the entire find worth no more than a curiosity. It
>> could have been made a few days before it was offered for sale for all we know.
> Already dealt with, so see my long reply.
A million word reply does not give it the essential thing that is required,
provenance.
I am certain that is quite frustrating for believers but that is the way it is.
The problem believers should be addressing is that percentagewise Israel is the
most dug place in the world. And its antiquities laws are such that seeding a
construction site with a fake would make more money from the delay than from
completion on time. The entire national prestige and a political territorial
claim is based upon finding support for the OT. They spend a large fortune
searching the Sinai looking for any sign of Exodus and found nothing.
Nothing has been found in bibleland to support the OT since archaeology became
a science.
Deal with it.
--
No one has done what they wish they had done.
No one has been what they wish they had been.
That does not mitigate the mythology.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3987
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Matt Giwer
Making assumptions which support the desired conclusion is arguing to the
conclusion which is a logical fallacy.
--
All I need to know about your politics is the politics of the man who runs
the church you attend.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3998
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Matt Giwer
...
> Genesis and Exodus are completely legendary - though one bit in them
> _might_ refer to a real historical event, as we do know that people
> from the Levant tended to wander in and out of Egypt - but this is a
> side issue, which I will not deal with here.
Jerusalem is a seven day walk from the Nile delta. What do you mean by wander?
The silk route to Egypt passed through bibleland since 3000 BC.
When you make Exodus small enough to make it credible you make it such a common
occurrence that it is meaningless. Whoever created Exodus does not appear to
even know where it is. But as the claim is Joshua entered by crossing the Jordan
it supports a mythology adopted in the Koran that the wandering was in Arabia.
If you ever travel to the region and have the money you can take a tour of all
three Mt. Sinais.
It is that part which leads me to suggest the creators of the Septuagint were
not even local people. That also addresses why the worship ceremony in Maccabe
is not distinguishable from that to Dionysius whereas the Septuagint religion is
primitive and savage.
> Okay, Archaeology of Israel then. As I have mentioned before, that I'm
> not an archaeologist, but even I am quite aware of a few things.
> There are quite a few seal and bullae finds - in archaeological
> context - mentioning specific personages of Israel and Judah in the
> Bible. A typical example would be, Shema Servant of Jeroboam." This
> one was found in Megiddo, which was one of Jeroboam II's strongholds.
> Even more interesting is the one that says, "Baruch ben-Neriah the
> Scribe." This person is mentioned in Jeremiah 36:32.
If you were trying to sell me a story about Ramses and his great kingom in
Egypt based upon a few seals instead of the massive inscriptions and dedications
then ... Well you would not be so foolish as to try. You would not take yourself
seriously. But when it comes to bibleland anything will do.
> The presence of these bullae often associates the person mentioned in
> the Bible often to the place where he is alleged to be in the Bible,
> giving quite good evidence that some incidents of the Bible are
> historically correct.
Everyone I have tracked down has been greatly over-reaching. Everyone I have
been able to look into has been pious crap. A few months ago there was a seal of
Jezebel breathlessly reported but all the experts said bullshit. I simply
rejected it immediately because the letters were not in name order and one of
them was missing. Another was around Jerusalem also breathlessly reported but an
expert said she read it backwards which is obvious from looking at it which is
what I said.
You will find all of these great finds are in articles written by breathless
journalism majors and rarely if ever result in a paper in the professional
literature. But believers don't care if a journalism major says it. It has to be
true.
There is a real archaeologists working in Jerusalem funded by a political
organization. She keeps discovering things no one else can find and the
newspapers cover it. But she never publishes. She first made the news by
discovering the palace of David. What she has is two rows of stone ten feet
apart and no sign there was ever a stone floor between them. Needless to say a
year and a half later and still no professional paper.
> This does not, of course, validate the entire Bible, just the later,
> somewhat historical parts of it. And even then we must always remember
> that the bias of the writers must be dismissed.
It does not validate anything which cannot be supported by the archaeology. You
can't run with a description of capturing large cities and fortresses if there
were none in the region at the time. Then the cleanest explanation is the
inscription was the inspiration for the later fantasy.
For the record there was very little exaggeration in official inscriptions in
ancient times. That idea was invented to excuse bible stories as exaggerations
because "everyone was doing it." They were not. Kings did not claim to rule
lands they did not. They did not invent cities that did not exist. They did not
exaggerate their enemies.
In fact they did not exactly exaggerate numbers. They did use them as
adjectives rather than for numeration. A myriad, myriad troops was simply saying
the army was huge. If it says 27 cities expect to find 27.
> Sure, you can create your own little conspiracy theory of working
> archaeologists gleefully forging these bullae, but I'm afraid that
> really would be grasping at the straws.
When you in fact cite from the professional literature in archaeology you will
find there is no conspiracy at all. You are taking newspaper articles seriously.
But as it is known bible believers provide the financing for so many digs even
the professional papers are permitted a conceit for their sponsors. In the first
paragraph the first sentence will say "thought to be" some bible city. That is
what the sponsors can quote. The second sentences gives the reasons why it is
unlikely to be that city. The third sentence gives a quick summary of what was
really found. The rest of the article discusses the finds and what they might
mean. The finds are usually little more than potsherds.
You really should look into what is really known and only from professional
sources.
ALL the academic museums in Israel are online. Percentagewise it is the most
dug place in the world. Look up what they have and what they put on exhibit.
They have next to nothing prior to the Greeks. They have relatively little from
the Greece era. Most of what they have is from the Roman era. Are Israeli
museums financed by the government of Israel part of the conspiracy?
And for what you do find they have, read what it really is not what the
brochure says it is to get people to pay to see it.
--
What is foreseeable is intended. It may not
be desired but it is intended.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3985
Matt Giwer
> Dragonblaze wrote:
...
>> Excuse me? Are you talking about the Merneptah or the Mesha Stele?
>> If it is the Merneptah, it is impossible to intrepret it in that way,
>> as the significant portion of it reads:
>> "The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
>> Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
>> Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
>> Canaan is captive with all woe.
>> Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
>> Yanoam made nonexistent;
>> Israel is laid waste; its seed is not,
>> Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
>> All who roamed have been subdued.
>> By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
>> Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat,
>> Given life like Re every day."
> Just so. The correct translation is "his seed is no more". It is
> difficult to see what "its" would mean in this context. Maybe the grain
> supplies?
In fact one has to be so creative imagining what it might mean to get any
meaning out of it at all it is not clear why anyone would be so desperate as to
try to hang their hat on this.
Even with "his seed is not" what is the meaning of the word in Egyptian in this
context and what is the meaning the translator is trying to convey? Did nouns
have gender? Are these legitimately phonetic hieroglyphs if anyone can actually
identify the glyphs in question.
Beyond that the proper name, if it is a proper name at all, would have to be of
a town or city in context which precludes it from being a geographic region.
It is a source of constant wonder to see the certainty of believers in the face
of even these elementary uncertainties. In fact it appears questionable to me
from the last three lines
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day."
Just how the name Merenptah is given the credit with all the gods like Ra and
Maat and whatever the hell Banere-meramun is supposed to mean.
--
All I need to know about your politics is the politics of the man who runs
the church you attend.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3998
Matt Giwer
> In message <iddSj.1400$I11...@newsfe08.ams2>
> Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The point being precisely that neither Israel or Judah are mentioned in
>> the cited academic fields.
> The point being that genuine scholars and academics are quite satisfied that
> Israel and Judah are well represented in the documents that have come down
> to us, so you and your hero Matt the Pratt are out on a limb that is not
> attached to any tree.
By definition bible scholars are believers and as such argue to the conclusion
they assume by wasting time studying a book of magic.
Your presentment of unanimity among academics is unsupported by other than your
statement.
The Biblical Archaeological Review is a newsstand magazine.
--
The question of who would Jesus nuke is very relevant. If you ask whom God
would nuke the answer is every first born and then some.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3979