Some Conclusive Evidence for Ancient Israel
Tiglath
Below is a translation of the Assyrian cuneiform text recording the
Battle of Karkar (853 B.C.); an easier summary can be found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karkar
It undoubtedly mentions Israel and its king Ahab, who took part in the
battle against the King of Assyria.
King Ahab was king of Israel, not Judah, and this non-biblical source
FROM HIS ENEMY by attesting to the king's defeat it also attests to
his existence and the existence of his realm: Israel.
This is by no means the sole evidence for the existence of ancient
Israel, but it is a most conclusive piece.
==============================================
Quoted from "Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia -- Part One"
by Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D. Professor of the Semitic Languages
and Literature in the University of Chicago.
ISBN 1 85417 047 3
Volume I - Historical Records of Assyria from the earlieat times to
Sargon.
Chapter XII - Shalmaneser III
Part II - The Monolith Inscription
Page 211:
Paragraph 594:
Our earliest annals text of Shalmaneser is the so-called "Monolith
Inscription," engraved, along with the figure of the king in relief,
on a stele which came to the British Museum from Kurkh. The record of
the military activities of the king, up to the battle of Karkar (sixth
year), is given in detail. The stele was probably set up at the end,
or soon after, the sixth year.
Page 222:
Year 6 (Column II, lines 78-102)
Paragraph 610
[...]
Page 223:
Paragraph 611
"Karkar, his royal city, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with
fire. 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, 20,000 soldiers, of Hadad-ezer,
or Aram (?cDamascus); 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, 10,000 soldiers of
Irhuleni of Hamath, 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab, the
Israelite, 500 soldiers of the Gueans, 1,000 soldiers of the Musreans,
10 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of the Irkanateans, 200 soldiers of
Matinuba'il, the Arvadite, 200 soldiers of the Usanateans, 30
chariots, [ ],000 soldiers of Adunu-ba'il, the Shianean, 1,000 camels
of Gindibu', the Arabian, [ ],ooo soldiers [of] Ba'sa, son of Ruhubi,
the Ammonite, -- these twelve kings he brought to his support; to
offer battle and fight, they came against me. (Trusting) in the
exalted might which Assur, the lord, had given (me), in the mighty
weapons, which Nergal, who goes before me, had presented (to me), I
battled with them. From Karkar, as far as the city of Gilzau, I
routed them. 14,000 of their warriors I slew with the sword. Like
Adad, I rained destruction upon them. I scattered their corpses far
and wide, (and) covered (lit. filled) the face of the desolate plain
with their widespreading armies. With (my weapons I made their blood
to flow down the vallcys (?) of the land. The plain was too small to
let their bodies fall, the wide countryside was used up in burying
them. With their bodies I spanned the Arantu (Orontes) as with a
bridge(?). In that battle I took from them their chariots, their
cavalry, their horses, broken to the yoke.
====================================
Despite the possible exaggeration of a victory stele, it seems that
King Ahab was able to field a substantial army, for such a small
kingdom. 12 chariots and 10,000 men.
If Israel had such resources in the ninth century, its development
must of necessity have begun much earlier.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Below is a translation of the Assyrian cuneiform text recording the
> Battle of Karkar (853 B.C.); an easier summary can be found in
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karkar
So your "conclusive evidence" is the fact that a bunch or
psycho bible thumpers wrote a wiki article?
There's a pattern here. Every. Single. Example. of what these
imbeciles call "Evidence" for Israel turns out to be a highly
creative interpretation of a problematic text which contradicts
the bible.
In the real world this is called "rationalizing" or just plain
"Grasping
at straws." But in the world of the bible thumpers this is "Solid
Evidence."
Face the facts: The Jews were nothing more than the result of
the cultural evolution of the people of the region. They didn't exist
until that evolution occurred -- exactly like every other ethnic
group in existence -- and no amount of effort to backdate their
culture will ever, nor can ever, succeed.
If this really bothers you, if you honestly need magic or far more
ancient roots, you need to get over it.
igor
Hmmm, So jews or any other ethnic group did not exist until all of a
sudden some specific event called cultural evolution happened???
Hilarious.....
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Below is a translation of the Assyrian cuneiform text recording the
> > Battle of Karkar (853 B.C.); an easier summary can be found in
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karkar
>
> So your "conclusive evidence" is the fact that a bunch or
> psycho bible thumpers wrote a wiki article?
>
Look what the cat dragged in, folks.
You are so predictable, asshole.
All you have to do for JTEM to step on his dick is to provide some
firm ground to stomp his foot on.
Hilarious.
The asshole deletes all the inconvenient evidence I posted and leaves
only the wiki reference, thinking the readers won't notice. How dumb
can he get?
The wiki is easier to attack, he thinks. Except that this time the
Wiki page has a photograph of the Kurkh Monolith where the Assyrians
mentioned Israel.
I, and millions of other people, have seen it with our own eyes, and
the translation nearby, at the British Museum.
That's far, too far from JTEM's trailer, folks, for him to ever go
near.
There is nothing funnier that a combative goober who choses all the
wrong battles.
Imagine choosing the battle "You can't prove a negative." Who with a
brain would do that? JTEM. And he is still fighting that battle,
bleeding profusely from bunches of black arrows on his back.
Imagine choosing the battle, "Ancient Israel did not exist." Who with
a sense of ridicule would get into that? You got it. JTEM. And he
came to that battle completely unarmed. So he pretends that the car-
size catapult stone pinning him to the ground is not there. "Look I
can move my toes."
Now the Kurkh Monolith got his toes as well
His hatred for Jews compels JTEM to make a complete ass of himself
before he will admit he is wrong, with the the obstinacy of ADR +
Aggie, and then some he ignores conclusive evidence come what may,
hoping that being combative means he is right.
Hence he keeps emitting lots of heat but still no light.
He is going to make a warn and nice Christmas for all of us here
decent people: spare all the abuse, road rage, and nagging normally
given to other people, for JTEM, with all the tranquility of knowing
that he deserves more than any other.
jerry warner
Tiglath wrote:
shulakalu galosh! una shambo too!
ADR
> His hatred for Jews compels JTEM to make a complete ass of himself
> before he will admit he is wrong, with the the obstinacy of ADR +
> Aggie, and then some he ignores conclusive evidence come what may,
> hoping that being combative means he is right.
Hmmmmm...who is obstinate here???? I or you who have written dozens
of replies to this idiot? The Assyrian inscription has been presented
here by many (including me) and the reply continues to be the same.
It does not really exist and if it does exist it does not say what it
says. But you can go on if you wish.
Tiglath
Thank you for your permission.
It's admirable of ADR to mention my love of mockery, which he mistakes
for obstinacy.
He is not far behind from JTEM and Aggie himself when it comes to
ignoring evidence, which he so roundly condemns in others.
I presented about a dozen ancient sources, showing how Protagoras was
considered through the ages to be the Chief Sophist of the Greek
Sophist movement.
ADR, for some reason has a thing against Plato, a big axe to grind, a
beam in his eye, if you will. which prevents him from seeing all the
evidence I posted the he was wrong insisting that Protagoras was a
Sophist.
His reasoning is that Plato used the term 'sophist' as a pejorative
for political purposes and attack Protagoras, therefore Protagoras was
not a Sophist, i.e., Sophists did not exist, which is the only way
Protagoras could not be a Sophist.
See the similarity?
Sophists did not exist.
Israel did not exist.
I patiently remarked to ADR, day after day, in much kinder ways than I
do to JTEM, that the term "Sophist" may have used pejoratively by
Plato, but that other people did not use it that way, including the
ancients who knew who Protagoras was. Outside Plato, "Sophist" was
not an insult but the term to describe the people who did what
Protagoras did and were what Protagoras, and other Sophists were:
itinerant teachers who taught for money, especially rhetoric as it
would be useful in court and trials, so that sophist were considered
the first lawyers of the world. ADR could not see that, even after
he, himself, told me that Protagoras wrote some Athenian legislation
for a fee, which is one of the things a Sophist would do.
ADR could not follow that simple argument, which was supported by
numerous references ancient and modern. He ignored them all a la
JTEM, always returning to his Plato argument, like a broken record,
just as JTEM does with his idees fixes.
Now, JTEM lies and cheats in debates for his Fuhrer and ADR does
not. It is not clear why ADR does it but a good guess is that his
head is too big to admit small mistakes -- a fragile ego at bottom.
I administer justice impartially and much as I don't overlook the bunk
people like ADR pour into Usenet, I am always willing to forgive
mistakes freely admitted and honestly regretted. But the truth is
that after a long list of howlers -- my list of his howlers is only
partial, to be sure -- not ONCE has ADR admitted or expressed regret
for one of his errors, or for ignoring conclusive evidence.
Instead he'll do the weasel buck and wing dance he regularly delights
us with.
And we are not talking small fry, folks.
See for yourself:
"[At Issus Darius had] more Greeks fighting for him than Alexander's
total army!!!"
"[Polybius] had little love for the Romans."
"To even suggest that Greek was written with a syllabic script until
the 4th century BCE (the age of Alexander the Great), it laughable and
preposterous."
And the mother of all howlers:
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
Be honorable ADR, repent or remain humbly silent; we've all seen the
JTEM in you.
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm, So jews or any other ethnic group did not
> exist until
So you're actually going to argue against the bleeding obvious,
that we're not all Goths, Vandals or even Celts?
Yes, retard, ethnicity is __Fluid__. It evolves, it changes,
new ethnic groups arise throughout history, and I don't mean
"Ancient History." The evidence for this inescapable fact is
all around you.
Some examples of recent ethnicity would include the Zulus
of South Africa, or the Hutu and Tusie of Rwanda.
No magic.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Assyrian inscription has been presented here
Well, "An English interpretation that dates back 120
years to a time when scholarly standards were a
joke." But, for you that's about as close as it gets.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Thank you for your permission.
Hey, shit for brains;
Where's the image of the actual text? The transliteration?
The explanation as to how you or anyone else interpret it
as "Israel"?
It seems you're EXACTLY like your "ADR" there in that
both of you accept as an authority anyone who agrees
with your jerking knee.
Congratulations.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Look what the cat dragged in, folks.
Another mental case holding two contradictory position
simultaneously...
Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as "Evidence"
for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- contradicts
the bible?
Your desperate interpretation of the Merneptah stele pretty
much excludes any "Exodus"... all your imaginary "King
Omri's" require the bible to have gotten "His" imaginary
reign completely backwards, and now this interpretation of
the Kurkh stele requires that the writers of the bible were
so ignorant, so inept that they even missed the single largest
battle of the region.
.....and this is all "Proof" that the bible got it right.
But it's all a waste of time. A small Israel would have left
__SOMETHING__ and an Israel large enough to be a major
player in the largest battle the region had ever seen at that
time would have left __PLENTY__.
"Would have," if it existed.
You're arguing that the Assyrian left a written record of this
Israel, when this Israel left no records what so ever. None.
Not so much as an inscription on a tomb. Nadda. Squat.
I can find thousands if not millions of references to an
Atlantis, and unlike your so-called references none of them
are problematic, none of them require any overtly creative
interpretations & wishful thinking, but not a one of them
is talking about a real place.
Good luck trying to grasp this, shit for brains.
ADR
I do not understand why you want to tangle with this again, but I
would be happy to oblige. I guess that the idiot JTEM is not
providing enough entertainment for you. In any case, this is my final
reply to this. I know that you are incapable of understanding most of
the issues and you will become irate and sarcastic, which is the
typical refuge of people like you who try to get a rise from an
argument.
> > Hmmmmm...who is obstinate here???? I or you who have written dozens
> > of replies to this idiot? The Assyrian inscription has been presented
> > here by many (including me) and the reply continues to be the same.
> > It does not really exist and if it does exist it does not say what it
> > says. But you can go on if you wish.
>
> Thank you for your permission.
>
> It's admirable of ADR to mention my love of mockery, which he mistakes
> for obstinacy.
>
> He is not far behind from JTEM and Aggie himself when it comes to
> ignoring evidence, which he so roundly condemns in others.
> I presented about a dozen ancient sources, showing how Protagoras was
> considered through the ages to be the Chief Sophist of the Greek
> Sophist movement.
There has never been a "Sophist Movement". It occured only in your
brain.
> ADR, for some reason has a thing against Plato, a big axe to grind, a
> beam in his eye, if you will. which prevents him from seeing all the
> evidence I posted the he was wrong insisting that Protagoras was a
> Sophist.
What I have against Plato you are incapable of understanding. But my
beef against Plato and his teachings is not the issue. The issue is
the following: It was Plato who used the term "Sophism" and "Sophists"
as pejoratives in his attacks against Protagoras. The term*** is and
remains*** a pejorative one. It is your lack of understanding of
Greek and the use of this term within the English milieu that does not
allow you to see further than your nose. Thus, if I do not buy
Plato's philosophy, I do not buy his mockery of men like Protagoras.
Protagoras was close with the democratic faction in Athens (a close
friend of Pericles). He was hated deeply by aristocrats like Plato.
> His reasoning is that Plato used the term 'sophist' as a pejorative
> for political purposes and attack Protagoras, therefore Protagoras was
> not a Sophist, i.e., Sophists did not exist, which is the only way
> Protagoras could not be a Sophist.
Every textbook would tell you (even Wikipedia, for crying out loud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras), that the term Sophist was
applied by Plato and his supporters to men like Protagoras who
subscribed to relativism and phenomenalism. However, my own position
on this does not inhibit anybody to be an admirer of Plato and
denigrate Protagoras as a Sophist. Even modern dictionaries assign
pejorative terms to the words sophism and sophist.
> I patiently remarked to ADR, day after day, in much kinder ways than I
> do to JTEM, that the term "Sophist" may have used pejoratively by
> Plato, but that other people did not use it that way, including the
> ancients who knew who Protagoras was. Outside Plato, "Sophist" was
> not an insult but the term to describe the people who did what
> Protagoras did and were what Protagoras, and other Sophists were:
> itinerant teachers who taught for money, especially rhetoric as it
> would be useful in court and trials, so that sophist were considered
> the first lawyers of the world. ADR could not see that, even after
> he, himself, told me that Protagoras wrote some Athenian legislation
> for a fee, which is one of the things a Sophist would do.
If Protagoras was alive today, he would not have considered himself a
Sophist. He never classified himself as such. These classifications
came about because of the considerable influence Plato had on later
thought. And the reasons that Plato retained such influence had
nothing to do with Plato's own teachings but the political environment
of the last 2000 years. You also have a punk knowledge of the ancient
world. Plato's own descriptions had little impact on antiquity. Nor
were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not apply
in antiquity. Protagoras wrote Athenian legislation not because he
was a Sophist but because he was trusted by Pericles to uphold
democratic values, something that irked Plato no end.
> ADR could not follow that simple argument, which was supported by
> numerous references ancient and modern. He ignored them all a la
> JTEM, always returning to his Plato argument, like a broken record,
> just as JTEM does with his idees fixes.
The same applies to you. You seem to want to convince me that the
term Sophism is "just a harmless classification" and I refuse to
accept any nomenclature or division or classification that originated
on the basis of Platonic views. I am not the only one. And those who
do understand Plato, understand quite well what I am talking about.
> Now, JTEM lies and cheats in debates for his Fuhrer and ADR does
> not. It is not clear why ADR does it but a good guess is that his
> head is too big to admit small mistakes -- a fragile ego at bottom.
Are you describing yourself
> I administer justice impartially and much as I don't overlook the bunk
> people like ADR pour into Usenet,
Now, who's head is too big??? You are a legend in your own mind
> I am always willing to forgive
> mistakes freely admitted and honestly regretted. But the truth is
> that after a long list of howlers -- my list of his howlers is only
> partial, to be sure -- not ONCE has ADR admitted or expressed regret
> for one of his errors, or for ignoring conclusive evidence.
Pity me... Pray for my transgressions!!!
> Instead he'll do the weasel buck and wing dance he regularly delights
> us with.
Nobody is as funny as you are. You are the real entertainer in these
boards
> And we are not talking small fry, folks.
>
> See for yourself:
>
> "[At Issus Darius had] more Greeks fighting for him than Alexander's
> total army!!!"
True. In fact, not only he had substantial number of Greek hoplites as
an element of his armies, but he did manage to get the Spartans and
their allies to attack the Macedonian positions in Greece. Antipater
defeated them in the battle of Megalopolis, the same year as the
battle of Gaugamela was fought in the East. To the number of Greek
mercenaries in Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, one needs to add the
many mercenaries in the fleet commanded by Memnon of Rhodes, the
troops guarding Miletus and Alicarnassus as well as the troops that
finally surrendered to Alexander on the way to Ecbatana. To those,
one also needs to add the substantial forces in garrison duties in
various parts of the Persian empire that surrendered to Alexander.
That Darius III was a lousy general and did not bring a major resource
to bear at each individual battle did not mean that it lacked that
resource.
> "[Polybius] had little love for the Romans."
Absolutely. How much love was he expected to have after being
detained with 1000 others for 17 years in Rome and returned to a home
in which a major city (Corinth) had been raised to the ground? But
one need go no further than reading his work. Although his "digs"
against the Romans were disguised, his support for the Macedonian
cause is clearly discernible (and what made the Romans to exile him in
the first place).
> "To even suggest that Greek was written with a syllabic script until
> the 4th century BCE (the age of Alexander the Great), it laughable and
> preposterous."
He, he, he....this is a correct statement. To even suggest that this
is not true because of minor practice in a remote part of the Greek
world is just preposterous. But it clearly shows to lengths that you
will go to pick an argument.
> And the mother of all howlers:
>
> "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
And I stand by it as do all modern military historians. Assuming the
same resources and the same order of battle, the limited and extended
German armies would not have been able to hold Zukov's attack with the
Siberian divisions even if they had perfect cold weather clothing.
What turned the battle of Moscow was Japan's decision to not attack
the USSR. This allowed the Red Army command to bring the Siberian
divisions to the central front and defeat the Germans in the battle of
Moscow. Hitler's decision to utilize resources from the central front
in the encirclement of Kiev was another decisive factor (allowed time
for the Russians to bring in the Siberian army). The dearth of proper
clothing hampered the Germans, true enough, (although it assisted the
German advance by hardening the roads that were muddy and impassable
in early autumn). Irrespective of this,in the absence of the Siberian
divisions, they would have occupied Moscow as the progress of battle
clearly showed. For those who have a good grasp of military matters
and want to delve into it, I would suggest that
igor
Here what young kindergartener JTEM said:
> Face the facts: The Jews were nothing more than the result of
> the cultural evolution of the people of the region. They didn't exist
> until that evolution occurred --
Looks like you meant that Jews did not exist until some kind of big
bang event called evolution occurred. Is English your second language?
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > Thank you for your permission.
>
> Hey, shit for brains;
>
> Where's the image of the actual text? The transliteration?
> The explanation as to how you or anyone else interpret it
> as "Israel"?
>
JTM is playing Usenet Refuter again.
How quaint.
Actually not anyone. An eminent professor of Semitic languages at
the University of Chicago who has translated ALL known Assyrian
records at the time. It's safe to trust the fellow knew his
cuneiform.
If you have evidence that he translated the stele wrong bring it
forward, asshole.
Emit light instead of heat for once for a change.
This was written a long time ago for goobers like you. What you are
doing is nothing new or original, and people have been on to the likes
of you for a long time. Meaning that you are not all that cunning,
just a cunt.
========================
Being a REFUTER in Usenet is easy, fun, and requires only a little
basic
knowledge:
1. How to find a post.
2. How to create breaks in the right places of the post for your
comments.
3. How to type short comments.
By following the simple guidelines below, you too can see your name
next
to post after post. You WILL get e-mail from people you don't know,
and
best of all, people will notice you.
To be a Refuter, you must first find a Poster. That is someone who has
something to say and creates a post. The wonderful thing is, you don't
have
to know anything about the poster's subject, just choose one of the
following methods to reply:
1. Ask the poster to prove every statement he makes.
2. Automatically oppose everything the poster says.
3. Simply keep asking 'Why'? of every idea expressed.
4. Ignore what he said, and psychoanalyze him negatively instead.
Next, sit back and watch him try explain or defend himself. You can
make him
define his definitions, then his definitions of his definitions etc.
ad
infinitum, and generally cause him to make a fool of himself by
jumping
through your hoops. It's a great way to kill time, and nobody will
ever know
you haven't got the faintest of what the poster is talking about.
========================
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where's the image of the actual text? The transliteration?
> > The explanation as to how you or anyone else interpret it
> > as "Israel"?
>
> JTM is playing Usenet Refuter again.
Cool. Now answer the questions.
Because, if you can't, you haven't a leg to stand on.
Weland
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Look what the cat dragged in, folks.
>
>
> Another mental case holding two contradictory position
> simultaneously...
>
> Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as "Evidence"
> for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- contradicts
> the bible?
Cause it doesn't? And so what if it did?
> Your desperate interpretation of the Merneptah stele pretty
> much excludes any "Exodus"...
Yeah, so? The "exodus" hasn't been a part of the discussion; in fact
both Tiglath and I have pointed out that reading the stele as referring
to Israel is problematic for any "religious" reading, largely on account
of the Exodus.
all your imaginary "King
> Omri's"
So mention of him on a stele makes him imaginary?
>require the bible to have gotten "His" imaginary
> reign completely backwards,
Oh, not backwards, but certainly the Deuteronomist downplayed him and
his successes.
and now this interpretation of
> the Kurkh stele requires that the writers of the bible were
> so ignorant, so inept that they even missed the single largest
> battle of the region.
Or chose to ignore it since it presented them in a bad light....not
unusual in Near Eastern literature for writers to ignore defeats.
There's even one Egyptian case where the writers claim a huge defeat at
the hands of the Hittites as an Egyptian victory, if I recall correctly.
> .....and this is all "Proof" that the bible got it right.
Wow, have you been barking up the wrong tree...we knew that, but still
to have it so clearly demonstrated is shocking, even for JTard. Tiglath,
Tom P, and I for 3 have never made any such claim about the "bible
getting it right." Or wrong for that matter.
> But it's all a waste of time. A small Israel would have left
> __SOMETHING__ and an Israel large enough to be a major
> player in the largest battle the region had ever seen at that
> time would have left __PLENTY__.
>
> "Would have," if it existed.
>
> You're arguing that the Assyrian left a written record of this
> Israel, when this Israel left no records what so ever. None.
> Not so much as an inscription on a tomb. Nadda. Squat.
>
> I can find thousands if not millions of references to an
> Atlantis, and unlike your so-called references none of them
> are problematic, none of them require any overtly creative
> interpretations & wishful thinking, but not a one of them
> is talking about a real place.
Meaning that according to your standards, Atlantis existed......
Weland
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JTARD demands Tiglath do what JTARD cannnot!
Actually read the text in the original, offer a transliteration, and
make his case! Yet, JTARD, in spite of being unable to offer the same,
claims to know what these texts really say! HILARIOUS!
JTEM
> > Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Where's the image of the actual text? The transliteration?
> >>>The explanation as to how you or anyone else interpret it
> >>>as "Israel"?
>
> >>JTM is playing Usenet Refuter again.
>
> > Cool. Now answer the questions.
>
> > Because, if you can't, you haven't a leg to stand on.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, retard, but you haven't the faintest clue.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as
> > "Evidence" for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT
> > EXCEPTION -- contradicts the bible?
>
> Cause it doesn't?
Try again, retard.
> And so what if it did?
Damn. You are one fucked up troll... Sheesh!
"Israel" only exists in the bible. It has no relevance
outside of religion. And yet the only so-called "Evidence"
for an historical Israel contradicts the bible.
> > Your desperate interpretation of the Merneptah stele
> > pretty much excludes any "Exodus"...
>
> Yeah, so?
You just denied it, above. Even a dipshit like you usually takes
longer before arguing against yourself.
> > all your imaginary "King Omri's"
>
> So mention of him on a stele makes him imaginary?
No stele mentions an "Omri."
The "Black Obelisk," for example, says: "The tribute of
Yahua son of Khumri: "
> > and now this interpretation of the Kurkh stele requires
> > that the writers of the bible were so ignorant, so inept
> > that they even missed the single largest battle of the
> > region.
>
> Or chose to ignore it since it presented them in
What you're doing is clinging to non-existing "Evidence"
(evidence supporting your blind conjecture) in order to
explain away what real evidence you do have.
Moron.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>
>
>>> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Where's the image of the actual text? The transliteration?
>>>>>The explanation as to how you or anyone else interpret it
>>>>>as "Israel"?
>>
>>>>JTM is playing Usenet Refuter again.
>>
>>>Cool. Now answer the questions.
>>
>>>Because, if you can't, you haven't a leg to stand on.
>
>
>>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Sorry, retard, but you haven't the faintest clue.
Sorry, JTard, everyone has your method clued in:
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>>Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as
>>>"Evidence" for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT
>>>EXCEPTION -- contradicts the bible?
>>
>>Cause it doesn't?
>
>
> Try again, retard.
Ok, some does, some doesn't. Meaning that your "Every.Single.Piece"
claim is false, which considering it's you, isn't surprising.
>
>> And so what if it did?
>
>
> Damn. You are one fucked up troll... Sheesh!
>
> "Israel" only exists in the bible. It has no relevance
> outside of religion. And yet the only so-called "Evidence"
> for an historical Israel contradicts the bible.
Wrong on both counts. Israel did exist outside the bible; and if you
are interested in the history of the region and period, then it has
relevance. The rest is your usual fallacy.
>
>>>Your desperate interpretation of the Merneptah stele
>>>pretty much excludes any "Exodus"...
>>
>>Yeah, so?
>
>
> You just denied it, above. Even a dipshit like you usually takes
> longer before arguing against yourself.
Denied what? Surely I didn't deny that Stele refers to Israel.
>
>
>>> all your imaginary "King Omri's"
>>
>>So mention of him on a stele makes him imaginary?
>
>
> No stele mentions an "Omri."
LOL! Deliberate IGNORANCE! Oh, JTard, you make me laugh.
>
> The "Black Obelisk," for example, says: "The tribute of
> Yahua son of Khumri: "
LOL!!!!!!!!! OH, my word that's funny!! JTard strikes again!!!! He
confuses modern English orthography with the ancient forms of the name,
and when they don't match, he thinks they aren't referring to the same
person!!!!!! OH GOD WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!
>
>
>>> and now this interpretation of the Kurkh stele requires
>>>that the writers of the bible were so ignorant, so inept
>>>that they even missed the single largest battle of the
>>>region.
>>
>>Or chose to ignore it since it presented them in
>
>
> What you're doing is
Setting the situation in the historical context and literary context of
the period in question.
Tiglath
>
> There has never been a "Sophist Movement". It occured only in your
> brain.
See folks? ADR is always quick to illustrate my points.
Sophism was enough of a movement as to cause university students to
write papers on it 2500 years later.
http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Sophist-Movement/128829
http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/8/5/123133/3720
Sophism was enough of a movement as to cause whole books to be written
on it 2500 years later under the auspices of top universities..
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521283574
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631210610_chunk_g978063121061010
That is FOUR proper reference that you are DEAD WRONG saying that
'There has never been a "Sophist Movement"'
Now folks see ADR response be exactly like that or JTEM, he will
ignore these references, and will reiterate his point that the Sophist
Movement never existed, just like "Israel didn't exist."
Or funnier still, he'll concoct some spurious arguments on how despite
those references, there was no Sophist Movement in Classical Athens
never, really.
Just watch.
>
> > ADR, for some reason has a thing against Plato, a big axe to grind, a
> > beam in his eye, if you will. which prevents him from seeing all the
> > evidence I posted the he was wrong insisting that Protagoras was a
> > Sophist.
>
> What I have against Plato you are incapable of understanding. But my
> beef against Plato and his teachings is not the issue. The issue is
> the following: It was Plato who used the term "Sophism" and "Sophists"
> as pejoratives in his attacks against Protagoras.
If I don't understand it why is that I said the same almost word for
word?
You say:
'It was Plato who used the term "Sophism" and "Sophists" as
pejoratives in his attacks against Protagoras.'
I said:
"His reasoning is that Plato used the term 'sophist' as a pejorative
for political purposes and attack Protagoras,"
It look I understand pretty well your argument and your beef with
Plato.
> The term*** is and remains*** a pejorative one.
I agree it does in the modern sense.
Aren't you always suggesting you are a master of Attic Greek and have
the inside track on what others have no clue?
If that was the case you would be able to give more shades to the
question instead of your simplistic view of it
In addition to Plato and Aristophanes, "Sophist" may well have been a
pejorative for hoi polloi, because of the suspicion with which
intellectuals and experts are viewed by the uneducated. But that was
not the case for the elite who employed Sophists in Greece and other
parts of the Mediterranean. This seems to have been understood by
the ancients in the following centuries and today's scholars.
'For our purposes, “the sophists” will simply pick out a group of
fifth-century teachers and thinkers who were so labeled in antiquity,
and whose practices and ideas seem to overlap in important ways; they
include Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, and Antiphon, and, in
some respects, Socrates."
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631210610_chunk_g978063121061010
No hint of pejorative there.
"From the fifth century B.C. onwards the term ‘sophistes’ is applied
to many of these early ‘wise men’ – to poets, including Homer and
Hesiod, to musicians and rhapsodes, to diviners and seers, to the
Seven Wise Men and other early wise men, to Presocratic philosophers
and to figures as Prometheus with a suggestion of mysterious powers.
There is nothing derogatory in these applications, rather the
reversed. It is to this honorable tradition that Protagoras wishes to
attach himself in the passage already quoted from Plato’s dialogue
Protagoras (316c5-e5)."
-- Kerferd. G.B., 1981, The Sophistic Movement, p. 24,
Cambridge University Press
This is an excerpt of the Introduction of that book:
"Since Plato first animadverted on their activities, the Sophists have
commonly been presented as little better than intellectual mountebanks
– a picture which Professor Kerferd forcefully challenges here.
Interpreting the evidence with care, he shows them to have been part
of an exciting and historically crucial intellectual movement."
This should not only convince you -- one vainly hopes -- that the
Sophists REALLY existed and that the Sophism Movement was a reality.
The above reference should do three things to a reasonable man
(1) It should convinced him that there was a Sophist (of Sophistic)
Movement in 5th century Athens. if only by the title of the book.
(2) It should convinced him that while a common (less informed) view
may have been that Sophist were cowboys, the evidence if interpreted
with care show that such was not the case, Plato and Aristophanes
notwithstanding.
(3) It should show that even if Plato used the term pejoratively, such
use in no way demonstrates that Sophists and Sophism did not exist.
Here is another chance to redeem yourself, ADR.
Was there a Sophist Movement in 5th century Athens?
Was Protagoras a Sophist?
These are yes/no questions. No need for more sophistry.
> It is your lack of understanding of
> Greek and the use of this term within the English milieu that does not
> allow you to see further than your nose.
I see a whole lot of places of learning and professors of philosophy
and ancient sources you refuse to see.
ADR is again suggesting that he is a master of Attic Greek and that he
can see what I can't see and what G. B. KERFERD
Hulme Professor of Greek in the University of Manchester can't see
either, as well as Bertrand Russell and all the other references I
have provided.
Again, ADR is putting on airs of erudition on his abysmal record of
simple conventional knowledge. It is to laugh.
<snip the usual anti-Plato angst>
>
> > His reasoning is that Plato used the term 'sophist' as a pejorative
> > for political purposes and attack Protagoras, therefore Protagoras was
> > not a Sophist, i.e., Sophists did not exist, which is the only way
> > Protagoras could not be a Sophist.
>
> Every textbook would tell you (even Wikipedia, for crying out loud:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras), that the term Sophist was
> applied by Plato and his supporters to men like Protagoras who
> subscribed to relativism and phenomenalism.
Even I have been telling you that much. Are you blind?
And I have also been telling you with lots of references, that outside
Plato's universe, Sophists and Sophism had and have a solid meaning
that is very clear, which everybody seems to understand but you.
>
> If Protagoras was alive today, he would not have considered himself a
> Sophist. He never classified himself as such.
Evidence?
> These classifications
> came about because of the considerable influence Plato had on later
> thought.
Dead wrong.
Professor Kerferd.disagrees with you. Such classification predated
Socrates, and then Protagoras and friends adopted it.l
"From the fifth century B.C. onwards the term ‘sophistes’ is applied
to many of these early ‘wise men’ – to poets, including Homer and
Hesiod, to musicians and rhapsodes, to diviners and seers, to the
Seven Wise Men and other early wise men, to Presocratic philosophers
and to figures as Prometheus with a suggestion of mysterious powers.
There is nothing derogatory in these applications, rather the
reversed. It is to this honorable tradition that Protagoras wishes to
attach himself in the passage already quoted from Plato’s dialogue
Protagoras (316c5-e5)."
> You also have a punk knowledge of the ancient
> world.
That from someone who thinks that Polybius -- a pillar of ancient
world literature and author of a gigantic eulogy to Rome -- disliked
the Romans.
You act as if you had any credibility here. Why?
You hit zero balance way back, and you are deep in the red, pal.
Plato's own descriptions had little impact on antiquity. Nor
> were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not apply
> in antiquity. Protagoras wrote Athenian legislation not because he
> was a Sophist but because he was trusted by Pericles to uphold
> democratic values, something that irked Plato no end.
>
You are ridiculous.
I have BURIED you in evidence that "Sophist" is a clear concept
describing certain teachers in fifth century Athens part of a movement
started by Protagoras. And doing a JTEM on it won't change a thing.
"The Greek Sophists" Chapter 1 "Protagoras"
See "Further Reading" you need it.
Check also the CAH Volume V, to fathom the depth of your lunacy.
"The heritage bequeathed by Protagoras to all subsequent sophistic
teaching is more manifest in Thucydides than in any other fifth
century author."
(A very interesting and detailed coverage of the Sophistic Movement,
which according to ADR did not exist.)
> > ADR could not follow that simple argument, which was supported by
> > numerous references ancient and modern. He ignored them all a la
> > JTEM, always returning to his Plato argument, like a broken record,
> > just as JTEM does with his idees fixes.
>
> The same applies to you. You seem to want to convince me that the
> term Sophism is "just a harmless classification"
Moving the goalposts already? Keep it simple, because it is. I
called you on your statement saying the Protagoras was not a Sophist.
and I still do.
I am calling you know on your incredibly stupid statement that the
Sophist Movement did not exist -- Trust you for compounding your
predicament.
"Sophist" is not a modern word. That's what the ancient Greeks
called Protagoras and his ilk, whether you like it or not.
> and I refuse to accept any nomenclature or division or classification that originated on the basis of Platonic views.
I am not surprised. You refuse to believe many thinks that are true
and believe many things that aren't, as I have listed.
You should keep those views, which defy the scholarly consensus, to
yourself until you have a better way to defend them, because now you
just cannot, and to air those views here SANS EVIDENCE is to mislead
any readers who come here to learn, and that is to be a JTEM.
> I am not the only one. And those who
> do understand Plato, understand quite well what I am talking about.
>
Plato's views are not essential to know what a Sophist is and what
Sophism was. His views can be said aim to demonize Sophists, a
teacher class which existed independently of him. Why can't you
understand that, and why can't you understand that EVEN if Plato
demonized Sophists, that does not mean that they did not exist. It
only means that they were demonized, you tiresome JTEM-wannabe.
> > Now, JTEM lies and cheats in debates for his Fuhrer and ADR does
> > not. It is not clear why ADR does it but a good guess is that his
> > head is too big to admit small mistakes -- a fragile ego at bottom.
>
> Are you describing yourself
>
I am describing you, most clearly. The archives are replete with my
retractions, apologies, and admissions of mistakes, so I don't fit
that description, you do.
> > I administer justice impartially and much as I don't overlook the bunk
> > people like ADR pour into Usenet,
>
> Now, who's head is too big??? You are a legend in your own mind
>
It's a noble thing to strike down ragamuffins like you who put on
intellectual airs and drop bunk bombs left, right, and center with no
remorse.
> > I am always willing to forgive
> > mistakes freely admitted and honestly regretted. But the truth is
> > that after a long list of howlers -- my list of his howlers is only
> > partial, to be sure -- not ONCE has ADR admitted or expressed regret
> > for one of his errors, or for ignoring conclusive evidence.
>
> Pity me... Pray for my transgressions!!!
>
I do. On my knee I thank the Lord I am not thee, or JTEM, or
Aggie.
I simple "I was wrong" would suffice. I told you before.
> > Instead he'll do the weasel buck and wing dance he regularly delights
> > us with.
>
> Nobody is as funny as you are. You are the real entertainer in these
> boards
>
You would not know. The most fun is for the wearer of the boot that
kicks the ass, your ass mostly.
> > And we are not talking small fry, folks.
>
> > See for yourself:
>
> > "[At Issus Darius had] more Greeks fighting for him than Alexander's
> > total army!!!"
>
> True.
Readers note the lack of references, just like the first time.
On the other hand, others who disagreed with your "assessment" and I
gave the various estimates for Darius Greeks and NONE came near your
numbers.
>
> > "[Polybius] had little love for the Romans."
>
> Absolutely.
Readers -- again -- zero evidence for this ridiculous statement.
Polybius may have started as a hostage, but soon lived a privileged
life at Rome, "with the stars" of the day, and he loved every minute
of it, as it's patent to anyone who has read Polybius' Book VI.
>
> > "To even suggest that Greek was written with a syllabic script until
> > the 4th century BCE (the age of Alexander the Great), it laughable and
> > preposterous."
>
> He, he, he....this is a correct statement. To even suggest that this
> is not true because of minor practice in a remote part of the Greek
> world is just preposterous. But it clearly shows to lengths that you
> will go to pick an argument.
>
Your ignorance should not be a laughing matter to you. Only to the
rest of us.
ADR, tries again to belittle the fact that he did not know that
syllabic script was used in the THIRD largest island of the
Mediterranean, Cyprus, until the Age of Alexander. Ignorance is all
there is behind his curiously mocking statement, and the smoke screen
he tries to keep around it.
> > And the mother of all howlers:
>
> > "In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
>
> And I stand by it
There you go, folks. JTEM II.
Just for fun let's examine the preposterous assembly of red-herrings
this goober has arranged to get out of that one...
> as do all modern military historians.
Thanks for that.
Which you can't name, it seems.
Like this one Nobel Prize winner for literature for his history of
WWII?
"The Germans unprepared for the rigors of winter campaigning, suffered
great privations and heavy losses."
-- Churchill, W. S., 1950, The Second World War, Volume IV
"The Hinge of Fate," p. 306. Mariner Books
> Assuming the
> same resources and the same order of battle, the limited and extended
> German armies would not have been able to hold Zukov's attack with the
> Siberian divisions even if they had perfect cold weather clothing.
Now ADR goes into what-if territory looking for greener pastures,
forgetting what he actually wrote.
Let us remind him:
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
> What turned the battle of Moscow was Japan's decision to not attack
> the USSR.
And now the sushi diversion. <sigh>.
> This allowed the Red Army command to bring the Siberian
> divisions to the central front and defeat the Germans in the battle of
> Moscow.
The winter, man, the winter. He's forgot again. Time for another
reminder...
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat."
-- ADR
> Hitler's decision to utilize resources from the central front
> in the encirclement of Kiev was another decisive factor (allowed time
> for the Russians to bring in the Siberian army).
No winter in sight...
> The dearth of proper clothing hampered the Germans, true enough,
Hang on. Buried in the thick of red-herrings there is after all a
sentence that means that the winter was actually an element in the
German defeat.
Which one is true, then:
"The dearth of proper clothing hampered the Germans"
OR
"In WWII, the winter was not an element in the German defeat"
Both cannot be true. Should you not retract one at least, for
clarity's sake?
> (although it assisted the German advance by hardening the roads
> that were muddy and impassable in early autumn).
Hardly so. It also hardened the engines, and everything that moved.
Why doesn' t he say that it also assisted the Germans with an endless
supply of ice-cubes?
> Irrespective of this,in the absence of the Siberian
> divisions, they would have occupied Moscow as the progress of battle
> clearly showed. For those who have a good grasp of military matters
> and want to delve into it, I would suggest that
And another bunch of herrings to sandwich his surprising admission,
that the winter actually was an element in the German defeat, in some
words to lesser effect.
This post explains this poster's vices better than anyone close to him
could.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Ok, some does, some
I think it's cute the way you refer to your brain
as your "Toilet."
Then again, it is full of shit....
Go on, you gutless wonder, explain how you fucked
up for days & days and couldn't get the number of
hieroglyphs right.
Thanks in advance.
Tiglath
>
> Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as "Evidence"
> for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- contradicts
> the bible?
>
So?
> Your desperate interpretation of the Merneptah stele pretty
> much excludes any "Exodus"...
No skin off my nose.
> the Kurkh stele requires that the writers of the bible were
> so ignorant, so inept that they even missed the single largest
> battle of the region.
Tell me something new.
> But it's all a waste of time. A small Israel would have left
> __SOMETHING__
It did for all who don't dogmatically refuse to see, like you
asshole.
> and an Israel large enough to be a major
> player in the largest battle the region had ever seen at that
> time would have left __PLENTY__.
>
Archeological remains don't only depend on the size of a civilization,
you ignorant twit. Some cultures inscribed a lot, others didn't,
nitwit.
> You're arguing that the Assyrian left a written record of this
> Israel, when this Israel left no records what so ever.
Records you won't recognize are never no records whatsoever.
So the Assyrians were lying?
What's your evidence?
.
Tiglath
So much bunk I forgot to reply to some large piece...
>
> I do not understand why you want to tangle with this again,
Take a guess.
> but I would be happy to oblige.
Good. A win-win situation, then.
> I guess that the idiot JTEM is not
> providing enough entertainment for you.
You can be even more entertaining than JTEM; he can carry only one
thought at a time, you can juggle several balls of bunk.
> In any case, this is my final
> reply to this.
Much too late to cut your losses, amigo.
Pray the Google archive goes the way of the Library of Alexandria,
'cause you footprints in it tell of you loud and clear.
> Nor were sophists lawyers as the term or
> even the function did not apply in antiquity.
That's some punk knowledge of antiquity yourself, ADR.
Another one for the list.
Even ADR's "rebuttals" are full of fresh bunk, he just can't help
himself.
Perhaps ADR should read:
Robert J. Bonner, Lawyers and Litigants in Ancient Athens: The Genesis
of the Legal Profession (New York: Benjamin Blom)
So Cicero was not a lawyer? Look up Lex Cincia (204 BC) – involving
tort reform concerning the payment of lawyers.
ADR, the Bunkmeister, strikes again.
Weland
...the way JTard pretends he's a rational being.
Fixing JTard's writing again:
> Go on, I am a gutless wonder, I need to explain how I fucked
> up for days & days and couldn't get the language right, the
quotations >right, the facts right.
Tiglath
>
> Sorry, retard, but you haven't the faintest clue.
>
> JTARD demands Tiglath do what JTARD cannnot!
>
In a rare moment of honesty he refers to himself as JTARD.
Know thyself.
Tiglath
>
> "Israel" only exists in the bible. It has no relevance
> outside of religion.
There seems to be no end to this asshole's supply of lobotomized
claims.
There is a State of Israel today, whose people even if atheistic must
be very interested in their early history, i.e., ancient Israel, in
purely historical terms.
Not to mention the thousands of historians who consider Canaan and its
cultures important to the development of Western civilization.
You don't have to be religious or pro-Zionist to recognize the
importance of the Judeo-Christian religions in society, and how
Israel, both the actual historical kingdom, and its aggrandized
version in the bible had great influence in Western thought and
history
It spawned Christianity, which shaped the lives and thought of our
civilization so completely until the Enlightenment and continues to do
so in alarming proportion. Dismayingly, in my country 50% of the
people believe in the literal truth of the bible, still.
Such is then the significance of Israel, even if one is not
religious.
I don't expect JTEM to get finer points like that, but I just love to
see him not get it.
Even the Fuhrer, through his evil, could see points like those and he
would not approve of the fact that his followers in 2009 have none of
the intelligence he had.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> I lick my mom's asshole clean. In this are moment of
> honesty I actually admit that I have a mom.
Okay.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Take a guess.
You forgot to take your meds? You have a plastic bag
over your head, cutting off the oxygen? You suffered
severe head trauma? You're retarded? Your emotional
illness trumps your cognitive skills?
Oh, do tell; which is it?
JTEM
Oh, look. Pussy boy forges quotes again. Don't worry,
as a deeply insane coward he will deny it, just like he
denies all of his other all too numerous faults...
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> > Go on, I am a
Problem is, pussy boy, you STILL haven't told us how you
managed get the number of hieroglyphs wrong, going on for
days & days denying you made any error, defending an
incorrect number.
Pussy.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > "Israel" only exists in the bible. It has no relevance
> > outside of religion.
>
> There seems to be no
Nothing I've stated is the least bit controversial. There was
a Judea -- nobody denies that -- and what remained of it
was destroyed by the Romans in the second century.
The whole idea that it's "Not Good Enough" and you require
a fantasy state dating back much further... one founded by
foreigners, recent arrivals to the region... is you problem.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that Every. Single. Piece. you claim as "Evidence"
> > for an historical Israel -- WITHOUT EXCEPTION -- contradicts
> > the bible?
>
> So?
Hey, shit head: It's only because of the bible that you pretend
there was an Israel in the first place. Oh, I know, you'll deny it
until your very last dose of meds, but it's still true.
What's the alternative, that you came across the name playing
with a Ouija Board? Please. It comes from the bible. Period. And
it's all circular from there.
You interpret the Merneptah stele as saying "Israel" only because
the bible tells you there's an Israel. If you never heard of the bible
you would never have heard of any "Israel," and you would have no
reason to say something likes, "I bet they meant Israel when they
scratched that word that doesn't say Israel!"
Tiglath
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Assyrian inscription has been presented here
>
> Well, "An English interpretation that dates back 120
> years to a time when scholarly standards were a
> joke."
What is your evidence that a mere century away scholarly standards of
Ivy League universities were a joke?
If they were, 120 years of peer reviewing can't seem to have find
anything wrong with the translation.
That is, Luckenbill's translation has the approval of the Test of
Time.
The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has one of the
best if not the best Department of Assyriology in the world.
In order to challenge successfully their findings you must muster
first considerable knowledge of the kind that takes a dedicated life
to acquire.
Feel free to try.
On the bright side, JTEM will be ebullient to learn that in Assyrian,
"Ahab the Isrealite ," is named, "A-kha-ab-u Sir-'i-la-a-a." Which
not being spelled quite like trailer park English, will fill him with
hope that after all Israel never existed.
<phew>
Weland
HMMM, JTard whines and whinges about how I allegedly forged a
quote....but that doesn't stop him from forging quotes for others!
Nothing like hypocrisy for our JTard!
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> HMMM,
So are you about ready to admit that you didn't know
how many hieroglyphs were in the word you pretended
to transliterate?
Oh, go, try a little maturity for a change. You'll never
know for sure if you like it or not if you won't try it.
ADR
> On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There has never been a "Sophist Movement". It occured only in your
> > brain.
>
> See folks? ADR is always quick to illustrate my points.
>
> Sophism was enough of a movement as to cause university students to
> write papers on it 2500 years later.
>
>
> Sophism was enough of a movement as to cause whole books to be written
> on it 2500 years later under the auspices of top universities..
>
>
> Check also the CAH Volume V, to fathom the depth of your lunacy.
>
> "The heritage bequeathed by Protagoras to all subsequent sophistic
> teaching is more manifest in Thucydides than in any other fifth
> century author."
>
> (A very interesting and detailed coverage of the Sophistic Movement,
> which according to ADR did not exist.)
>
> > > ADR could not follow that simple argument, which was supported by
> > > numerous references ancient and modern. He ignored them all a la
> > > JTEM, always returning to his Plato argument, like a broken record,
> > > just as JTEM does with his idees fixes.
>
> > The same applies to you. You seem to want to convince me that the
> > term Sophism is "just a harmless classification"
>
> Moving the goalposts already? Keep it simple, because it is. I
> called you on your statement saying the Protagoras was not a Sophist.
> and I still do.
>
> I am calling you know on your incredibly stupid statement that the
> Sophist Movement did not exist -- Trust you for compounding your
> predicament.
It is with a certain pity that I read you essay. Your behavior is
similar to an "enfant savant" (without the savant), who combs the
internet for stupid papers written by persons with scant education and
parade them here as evidence that a "Sophist" movement existed. At
least, have the courage to stay with accepted explanations as such of
those in wikipedia. You are unable to have a coherent discussion and
unable to understand the main points been made. The preamble of my
answer was that this was the final statement and I have no interest in
entering into any debate and name calling with a person of such
limitations, lack of knowledge and an egomaniac to boot.
Just for your information, my Attic and Koine language skills are way
above yours as I am able to read most of the ancient authors in the
original. And I do not need to scour the Internet to know what Plato
was talking about, I have read most of his dialogs and know them
well. If you cannot understand Plato's and Aristotle's disdain of
democracy (and their vehement opposition to those who supported it), I
do not wish to continue this discussion.
Some elements below for those who may want to follow this through:
For those compelled to scour the Internet rather than read his own
works, these are some entries that discuss Plato's (and Socrates')
opposition to democracy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1824376/posts
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm (a more academic
treatise and more disturbing)
As for Aristotle, his position that democracy is "government by the
needy" is well known
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/greekfeatures/a/democracyaristl.htm
Since the work of the "sophists" has not survived, Plato and Aristotle
opinions and characterizations of them have prevailed.
The reason that the works of Plato and Aristotle survived is because
they were in confluence with the political realities of the antique
world. The Athenian experiment remained limited, autocracies,
monarchies, aristocracies, elites, churches ruled for much of the time
until very recently. Plato and Aristotle provided the philosophical
underpinnings of these regimes while the works of the mockingly called
"sophists" were consigned to oblivion because the democratic
experiment that they supported withered and died. And this is the
truth of the matter.
And the end of this discussion.
Tiglath
Learn to trim posts, pal.
>
> > I am calling you know on your incredibly stupid statement that the
> > Sophist Movement did not exist -- Trust you for compounding your
> > predicament.
>
> It is with a certain pity that I read you essay. Your behavior is
> similar to an "enfant savant" (without the savant), who combs the
> internet for stupid papers written by persons with scant education and
> parade them here as evidence that a "Sophist" movement existed.
All that time to respond and that is the best you can come up with?
Did I tell you folks that ADR would ignore the evidence posted. Am I
right, or am I right?
According to this mook I only posted "stupid papers written by persons
with scant education"
For example.
Kerferd. G.B., 1981, The Sophistic Movement, p. 24, Cambridge
University Press
Who is Kerferd, G.B.?
George Briscoe Kerferd, classicist: born Melbourne, Australia 15
January 1915; Lecturer in Greek, Durham University 1939-41 and
l946-51; Lecturer in Greek, Sydney University 1942-46; Senior Lecturer
in Greek and Latin, Manchester University 1951-56, Hulme Professor of
Latin 1967-73, Hulme Professor of Greek 1973-82 (Emeritus); Professor
of Classics, University College, Swansea 1956-67; died Manchester 9
August 1998.
Only an utterly ignorant and stupid person with a scant education,
would call Profesor Kerferd's book "a stupid paper written by persons
of scant education."
Once again ADR promises that this is it; it's the last word on the
matter, and wishes that his word be the conclusion.
Sorry, can't do.
ADR is to soc.history.ancient what Gary Glitter is to pop-rock. He
announced his retirement and a week later announced a comeback, and
did it quite a few times. BBC aired his farewell show in which most
of the show was him exiting through a neon door, just to jump back out
for another song, over and over again.
> At least, have the courage to stay with accepted explanations as such of
> those in wikipedia.
After trashing the book of an emeritus classicist he beseeches me to
accept Wikipedia's info.
Is he mad?
I think Wikipedia is pretty good and I INVITE, if not challenge ADR to
quote where in Wikipedia says that the Sophist Movement did not
exist.
From Wikipedia:
"Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of the sophists."
Take that. Or like the Ionians said, DEXA.
"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor."
Catch that too.
Where is the part where it says that Protagoras was not a Sophist or
that there was no such thing as the Sophist Movement?
We are talking Wiki here, YOUR source of choice today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophist_movement&redirect=no
Want more Wiki?
ADR says:
"Nor were sophists lawyers as the term or even the function did not
apply in antiquity."
Wiki says:
"Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the
sophists were the first lawyers in the world."
Now, will ADR do as much as he expects of me, and "have the courage to
stay with accepted explanations as such of those in wikipedia."
If he shows such courage we should be hearing soon from him admitting
at long fucking last that he was wrong when he said that Protagoras
was not a Sophist, the the Sophist Movement did not exist, and that
sophist were not the first lawyers.
Feel any courage welling up yet?
> You are unable to have a coherent discussion and
> unable to understand the main points been made.
I not only understand them, I posted them in my words next to your
words so everyone can see that I very clearly understand your
points. And after clearly understanding all I can say is that you
are DEAD WRONG. And lots of references show that you indeed are.
You should stop "hearty disagreement" "inability to understand."
You, on the other hand, are conspicuous for your inability to
persuade.
> The preamble of my
> answer was that this was the final statement and I have no interest in
> entering into any debate and name calling with a person of such
> limitations, lack of knowledge and an egomaniac to boot.
>
Gary Glitter is jealous of Elvis yet again.
> Just for your information, my Attic and Koine language skills are way
> above yours
I did not ask for your resume. I am always wary of people who beat
their own drum, and when their arguments lie in ruins pull their
resume to suggest their arguments come from a proper authority.
You could have seventeen top degrees in classical studies and be
fluent in ancient Greek and Latin (both of which I doubt) and you
would still be wrong.
Because the ULTIMATE measure of a debater is in the soundness and
validity of the arguments he offers, and the quality of the reasoning
and evidence he supports them with. If Einstein wrote what you wrote
he would measure at the same moronic level as you.
It is only when a man's arguments EARN widespread respect that you
find most likely that he's had excellent training and possesses
impeccable academic credentials, and then BOTH the excellence of his
argumentation and his scholarly reputation make such a person a proper
authority.
Your arguments, on the other hand, consist largely of premium
bullshit. So there is no need to go further and see what sort of
training you've had. If you've had any worth mentioning, it obviously
did not take and you should be asking for a refund.
A man with a fraction of the intellect and education you claim to have
would never be caught writing:
"[P]roving a negative, which is a scientific impossibility."
Another ADR gem.
You went as quiet as a Jewish mouse in a mosque, when I replied to
that inanity properly in another thread. Cat got your tongue?
Stop giving yourself kudos, you look ridiculous enough as it is.
> as I am able to read most of the ancient authors in the
> original.
I am not duly impressed.
> If you cannot understand Plato's and Aristotle's disdain of
> democracy (and their vehement opposition to those who supported it), I
> do not wish to continue this discussion.
>
I told you before Plato's and Aristotle's disdain of democracy have no
bearing on the question of whether Protagoras was a Sophist or not, on
the question of whether a Sophist Movement existed in 5th century
Athens, or on the question of whether lawyers existed in antiquity,
starting with the Sophists. Sophists existed before Plato, and their
movement was not invented by Plato, or their functions.
Your demented insistence that such disdain implies that Protagoras was
not a Sophist, that there was no such thing as a Sophist Movement, and
the the functions of a lawyer did not apply in antiquity suggest that
your powers of reasoning and logical thinking can't be helped by any
amount of memorized Attic Greek vocabulary.
All Plato, et al, did is give them a bad name. You ought to write
that a few thousand times until it gets inculcated into your concrete
head.
>
> As for Aristotle,
<snip ADR in unsolicited lecture mode>
>
> And the end of this discussion.
Famous last words...
How many times has ADR "left" this discussion?
Let's see...
From this thread and the thread: "who was the first king of rome?
romulus?"
Where ADR strained to outdo Aggie as he strains to outdo JTM in this
thread, coming perilously close.
"Enough of that."
- August 31, 2009
"This discussion is at an end.
- September 1, 2009
"My whole argument -and I really do not care to go over it again."
- September 1, 2009
"This is a closed issue."
- September 11, 2009
"[T]his is my final reply to this."
- November 5, 2009
"And the end of this discussion."
- November 7, 2009
'Nuff said.
Weland
that you don't know ancient Egyptian, how to read the script, or
anything about linguistics?
Weland
> Oh, look. Pussy boy forges quotes again. Don't worry,
> as a deeply insane coward he will deny it, just like he
> denies all of his other all too numerous faults...
Apparently, you don't know what "forge quotes" means. I tried to help
you, but alas, you are beyond such help.
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> > Go on, I am a
>
Here, helping you out again with what we know you really want to say:
> Problem is, I am a pussy boy, and I STILL haven't told us how I
> managed get the large number of facts wrong, going on for
> days & days denying I made any error, defending
> incorrect claims.
> Signed,
>Pussy.
There, that's looks right. You're welcome.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Oh, look. Pussy boy forges quotes again. Don't worry,
> > as a deeply insane coward he will deny it, just like he
> > denies all of his other all too numerous faults...
> Apparently, you don't know what "forge quotes" means.
Silly me, I thought it meant that you passed off something
as a quote when in fact the other person never said it... and
the rest of the planet thought so, too.
Damn, you keep dodging & dodging & dodging...
Please act like an adult and admit your errors regarding the
Merneptah stele. Failing that, borrow some manhood and
start defending your position.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, look. Pussy boy forges quotes again. Don't worry,
>>>as a deeply insane coward he will deny it, just like he
>>>denies all of his other all too numerous faults...
>
>
>>Apparently, you don't know what "forge quotes" means.
>
>
> Silly me, I thought it meant that you passed off something
> as a quote when in fact the other person never said it... and
> the rest of the planet thought so, too.
Nope. It's passing off something as a quote with the intent to deceive.
There was no deception, and in fact no one thought you wrote it. You
really are a dumb ass.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Nope. It's passing off something as a quote
...something that isn't a quote... something
that you created.
Exactly. And that's what you have done numerous times,
at least since 2007.
Matt Giwer
> On Nov 6, 1:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Israel" only exists in the bible. It has no relevance outside of
>> religion.
> There seems to be no end to this asshole's supply of lobotomized claims.
> There is a State of Israel today, whose people even if atheistic must be
> very interested in their early history, i.e., ancient Israel, in purely
> historical terms.
You are talking about the local simpletons who cite god giving the
land as sufficient cause to murder Palestinians. It is not something to
advertise.
> Not to mention the thousands of historians who consider Canaan and its
> cultures important to the development of Western civilization.
There are many fools like that. Just last week I watched some
izziehugging nutcase talking about the creation of the Torah in the 6th c.
BC. He was raving about the NEW idea of the law being a written thing and
not just a family tradition.
He was introduced as an biblical archaeologists.
Obviously a knowledge of either history or archaeology is not
required to be a biblical archaeologists.
He reminds me of so many here.
> You don't have to be religious or pro-Zionist to recognize the importance
> of the Judeo-Christian religions in society, and how Israel, both the
> actual historical kingdom, and its aggrandized version in the bible had
> great influence in Western thought and history
One has to be ignorant of Christianity to think it is based upon
anything from bibleland beyond lip service. One can speculate how the Yahweh
cult was able to exclude the worship of Ashara from the Mishna and later
texts.
> It spawned Christianity, which shaped the lives and thought of our
> civilization so completely until the Enlightenment and continues to do so
> in alarming proportion.
Which of course ignores even the Christians who reasonably point to
Pauline Christianity which arose in Antioch. Most Christians realize Jesus
is only a hood ornament but aren't willing to say it so obviously.
> Dismayingly, in my country 50% of the people believe in the literal truth
> of the bible, still.
Even more dismaying are those who think illiterate goatherds and
dirt farmers with the usual local pantheon can be substituted for a mythical
Israel simply by using a name which at best was cribbed from the Egyptian
inscription for use in the 6th c. BC creation of fanciful past glories out
of whole cloth.
> Such is then the significance of Israel, even if one is not religious.
I fail to see anything of interest. We have excluded the possibility
they invented monotheism and established the OT religion is the creation of
a Yahwist cult which was not noteworthy in Greek and Roman times. We have
also established Christianity is a Roman and Greek development unrelated to
Judaism save for the hood ornament.
We have further established not one single contribution of humanity
in any form arose in bibleland.
As all of these have been established beyond significant objection
by anyone participating here and in the world at large it is not clear just
what wet dream you have about Palestine.
Could you be SPECIFIC in what you think is of interest which arose
from the anus mundi?
> I don't expect JTEM to get finer points like that, but I just love to see
> him not get it.
I do expect your recitation of the finer points you pretend to see.
Are you enamored with ritual animal slaughter?
> Even the Fuhrer, through his evil, could see points like those and he
> would not approve of the fact that his followers in 2009 have none of the
> intelligence he had.
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
--
The greater the gap between rich and poor the richer the poor.
I do not explain it. I do not use it to justify the gap.
I simply note it as a fact.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4204
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Sun Nov 8 04:54:30 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Hmmm, So jews or any other ethnic group did not exist until all of a
> sudden some specific event called cultural evolution happened???
> Hilarious.....
One would expect Jews did not exist as members of a geographic
political subdivision until Judea came into existence.
That does not qualify as an ethnic group.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sun Nov 8 06:25:13 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>> Below is a translation of the Assyrian cuneiform text recording the
>> Battle of Karkar (853 B.C.); an easier summary can be found in
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karkar
>
> So your "conclusive evidence" is the fact that a bunch or psycho bible
> thumpers wrote a wiki article?
>
> There's a pattern here. Every. Single. Example. of what these imbeciles
> call "Evidence" for Israel turns out to be a highly creative
> interpretation of a problematic text which contradicts the bible.
>
> In the real world this is called "rationalizing" or just plain "Grasping
> at straws." But in the world of the bible thumpers this is "Solid
> Evidence."
Because of this tenuous nature of the connection I observe there is
no way to distinguish a bible story as a "real" recounting of events from
the material being the inspiration for a story. There is real history in
Xena, Warrior Princess in the same way there is real history in the OT. In
both cases real events were no more than inspiration for a fanciful story.
Consider King Ahab as a transexual Xena.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sun Nov 8 06:21:13 EST 2009
Tiglath
His obsession with shit and rear holes tells of the sort of birth
canal that delivered him into this world.
Tiglath
No need to sign your posts; we know you are a cheesy cunt.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Nope. It's passing off something as a quote
>
>
> ...something that isn't a quote...
Oh, you mean like just what you did here....so you're forging
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Oh, you mean like just what you did here....
I didn't do it here. Then again, a shit head like you who
actually believes forging quotes is clever couldn't be
expected to be honest.
Go on, shit head; who do you believe you've fooled?
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, you mean like just what you did here....
>
>
> I didn't do it here.
Sure....but you did to Tiglath just the other day and got caught red
handed, you hypocrite. What's more, in your case there was no satire in
it at all.