What if there really were evidence for Biblical...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » What if there really were evidence for Biblical...

Page 37 of 46 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 36, 37, 38 ... 44, 45, 46 Next

What if there really were evidence for Biblical...

Author

Message

Tiglath...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:47 am

Guest

On Oct 26, 11:51 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
More inaudible cries

So now you're hearing inaudible cries...

[/quote]
I am reading them from JTEM the whiner.

But if you want me to actually hear you whine you can call me
anytime. It's a free call: 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

Tiglath...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:50 am

Guest

On Oct 26, 12:06 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
Asking JTEM to provide evidence for his claims

It wasn't my claim, shit for brains. I said that Larry Swain
aka "Weland" forged a quote,
[/quote]
That is a CLAIM, fuckwad.

One that you still have to substantiate, and surely never will because
you don't have any evidence, which never stops you from shooting your
fetid mouth, anyway.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:16 am

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

[snip "Reality is a matter decided by way of a
popularity contest" argument]

[/quote]
Always best to check what young JStupid has snipped or cited:

I wrote:

[quote]No; for the moment let's say none of us know the language. That
means we are dependent on the Egyptologists. And the vast majority of[/quote]
them say that the word there on the stele indicates Israel. Now that of
course doesn't establish it as "fact", but we do have to ask ourselves
quite apart from all else, why is it that they think so: not all of them
are Christian, Jews, or Muslim and further even if they were, the Stele
presents a difficult problem for those who take the Exodus account as
historical, so it'd be in their best interest not to read the stele as
"Israel". Thus, we have to explain, unless we know the languages and
script, why it is that these scholars say it indicates Israel and we can
not resort to merely claiming they are all acting as believers, since if
they were, they'd be acting against their best, theological, believing
interests.

It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says. If we look at
the phonology represented by the hieroglyphs and compare it to other
languages in the region when a very similar word appears, and they all
indicate a group of people living in the central hills of Canaan....it
seems special pleading to say that that doesn't indicate "Israel".

So as proof, we have the name itself, comparative phonology, comparing
the document to documents of other kingdoms, authorities, and then
there's the text of the bible itself when it is treated as any other
historical document, but that last is just icing on the cake.<<

As usual, young Jstupid has missed the boat and constructed a straw
man...but this time even the straw man beat him up so he had to just be
dismissive....another favorite fallacy of Jester JStupid the Craven.

[quote]Now that of course doesn't establish it as "fact"

It doesn't establish anything, actually, yet YOU
raised it.
[/quote]
Poor JStupid, too dumb to know that the qualified opinion of experts is
evidence...he'd rather sit in his pool of ignorance.

[quote]Again, this is basic stuff that would get you thrown
off of any decent high school debating team. You
raised a fallacious argument knowing it was a fallacious
argument. Period.
[/quote]
If you actually knew anything about high school debate, much less
college level or rhetoric etc, citing expert opinion, whether of
individuals or or a collective, is par for the course and counts as
evidence. Even in law trials, the expert witness is called to give
testimony. A little high school debate would have helped you, young
JStupid.

[quote]
why is it that they think so:

Irrelevant. We are establishing reality here.
[/quote]
Very relevant and reality has already been established. It is you who
rejects it.

Why people
[quote]choose not to perceive it is an interesting question, but
not germane to the discussion.
[/quote]
Well, first, we aren't talking about "people". We're talking about
professional Egyptologists who, unlike you, know the language, script,
and a bit about linguistics: experts vs. the willfully ignorant JStupid.

Second, it is germane since the vast majority of experts say X, and the
willfully ignorant who is unfamiliar with history, language, script, or
linguistics says "Nuh uh." Expert opinion is germane to the question,
the opinion of the ignorant isn't, though it is interesting to ask why
you believe as you do....but it sure has nothing to do with the topic.

[quote]In case counting is an issue for anyone: That makes
two (2) fallacious arguments.,
[/quote]
Oh you've committed more than that: you created straw men, you dismissed
without dealing with the argument, made contrafactual statements without
supporting evidence, and claimed valid argument invalid without
evidence...that's 4 you've committed in the space of half a post.
[quote]
It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.

Speaking of counting issues: There are seven (7) signs
which make up the word, plus a literal mark and
determinatives, not your six (6).
[/quote]
So transliterate it for us young JStupid. Show us what image you are
transliterating from and what exactly you are transliterating.

[quote]
If we look at the phonology represented by the hieroglyphs
and compare it to other languages in the region when a
very similar word appears,

You're claiming that it has to say "Israel" because it's similar
to words that appear in different languages much, much,
much later.
[/quote]
Says the guy who was claiming ancient Egyptian had an "l" sign from more
than 1000 years later but somehow failed to produce such a sign anywhere
in the temporal vicinity of the Stele. 4-5 centuries isn't "much, much,
much" later, and is what we have. I suppose you could argue that the
Egyptians came up with the name and applied it to a people in the hills
of central Canaan and that later peoples adopted it, but it still means
that there was a people in that region that the Egyptians called "israer".

But no, we know the word isn't a native Egyptian word, but was borrowed
from a Semitic language...we know because of the phonology and the roots
of the word. Egyptian btw isn't a Semitic language. So Egyptian
borrowed it from somewhere. The form matches what later languages
record as a name for a people in the central hills of Canaan. So we
have a Semitic name borrowed into Egyptian and we have a Semitic name
recorded in Semitic languages from 400 years after the Stele for a
people in the same region. That's the thumbnail version.

[quote]
That's not an argument, it's a weak rationalization. In fact, it
would be unreasonable to expect us NOT to find similarly
spelled and/or sounding words in "neighboring" languages,
given all the time, all the nearby peoples and all the
languages/dialects.
[/quote]
Actually *that's* a weak rationalization. To those who know the
languages and scripts, it's the same name for a group of people in the
same geographical region. One could argue that Merneptah's Semitic
group in c. 1200 in central Canaan is different than the later group
called by the same name in the same geographical region, but that seems
like a special pleading.

<snip utter nonsense already disproven>
[quote]

Its only obvious because the inverse is the typical
objection: the bible shouldn't be treated as any other
ancient document,

Actually, you're the one arguing the above. I personally have
no problems at all with placing the bible alongside all the
other ancient religious texts.
[/quote]
Yes you do. You reject such all the time.

It's you who wants to set it apart,
[quote]segregate it from all the other religious texts, force us to treat
it differently.
[/quote]
Uh huh, if you think that then you haven't been reading very closely.
[quote]

Israel didn't exist,

That is what the evidence tells us, as reasonable people must
follow the evidence.
[/quote]
Yeah, you and Giwer are the reasonable people while people who do
history in the period and region, know the languages, the scripts, the
linguistics, the archaeology all say otherwise. Interesting...wonder
who to believe? An ignorant sod or a community of scholars whose
interests are reconstructing the human past and so so with a set of
methodologies under constant peer review? I think it better to go with
the latter, myself. I do hire plumbers to fix plumbing and heart
surgeons for heart surgery, not the other way round.

[quote]Look at you. Even with all the time to prepare, and with the
World Wide Web full of supporters you still couldn't produce
even a single legitimate reason for interpreting the Merneptah
stele as mentioning "Israel," and the Merneptah stele is
supposed to be your first & best evidence.

All these people you claim -- this army of Egyptologists who
believe the stele says "Israel" -- yet if even a single one has
ever come up with a legitimate reason for making such a
determination they have kept it secret.
[/quote]
This JSTupidese for "have widely published it in books that JStupid
can't read because he's locked in a hospital ward."

Interesting though that with all his jumping up and down JStupid can't
produce a single valid reason for saying it isn't a reference to a
people called Israel...the best he can do is claim generalities to
specifics....a fallacy. There, there JStupid, you might grow a brain
cell one day.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

Wonder why you keep ignoring it?

Besides the fact that you're a lying sack of shit?

Aw, invective to avoid answering the questions....

Wrong again, shit for brains. I ignore you worthless claims
[/quote]
and confess to committing yet more fallacies....

[quote]because they come from a proven liar,
[/quote]
more projection

[quote]exactly as I would
ignore the claims of any other liar.
[/quote]
so you ignore your own claims? Interesting.

JStupid Jester is having a bad Monday.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:14 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

Sorry, been done twice already,

Less than once, actually, but you've always had
those "Counting" issues...
[/quote]
*Yawn*....best you can do is remain stupid and ignorant. Oh well, young
JStupid....

[quote]
Admit it:
[/quote]
I have admitted that there are good, sound linguistic and contextual
reasons to think it refers to Israel.

[quote]There are no legitimate reasons, only
cheap rationalizations.
[/quote]
On your end, too true. You've yet to give a single legitimate valid
reason for thinking otherwise. Second confession on your part so far
today. Keep it up, there may be hope for you yet.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:54 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:

Ignoble JTEM still has to post evidence of Larry's
reference forging,

I never said that he forged references, shit for brains, I
said that he forged quotes. And he has in nearly every
exchange we've ever been in, and at at every one since
his "Camels" nonsense.
[/quote]
Poor JStupid just doesn't like being treated like how he treats everyone
else. I've not forged quotes. I have edited your statements from time
to time to say something more factual modeling my editorializing on your
own method of changing what others have said to suit your own purposes.
Don't like it? Stop doing it. Simple point for a simple mind.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:57 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]

Stop kidding yourself.

If you had even a single legitimate reason for clinging
to your "Israel" fantasy you would have posted it.

You want to "Win" arguments. Your feeble ego can't
even bare to admit mistakes, so you would never pass
on an opportunity to show that you're right. The reason
why you did not post any legitimate reasons is because
you don't have any legitimate reasons. Nobody does.
[/quote]
More projection. Really JStupid, you shouldn't reveal so much of your
opinion of yourself...we already know you are a sick puppy in need of
hospitalization...don't give us more proof.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:59 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

Oddly, your very first impulse was to lie and claim
that you hadn't made up the smears. It is only now,
with a little distance granted you, that you fall
back on pretending that you're oh so superior.

Everyone here

You're making my point. Congratulations.

Here's what I wrote:
Everyone here is superior to you.
[/quote]
So apparently JStupid agrees: everyone here is superior to him...after
all he said I made his point.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:01 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

Well, that

I'm sorry,
[/quote]
Oh indeed! You are a very very sorry little person. For once we agree.

[quote]
Maybe they're with the WMDs and Al Qaeda ties?
[/quote]
Certainly, you're "reasons" for claiming that the Stele doesn't refer to
Israel are pretty much in that category of nonexistent excuses to do
something. Third admission of something uncomfortable for you
today...not a good Monday for our young JStupid.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:03 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:

Asking JTEM to provide evidence for his claims

It wasn't my claim, shit for brains. I said that Larry Swain
aka "Weland" forged a quote, and has resorted to forging
quotes in pretty much every exchange we ever had.
[/quote]
Edited. And I'm just following your lead. On the other hand, you do it
in pretty much every exchange you have, regardless of the person.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:39 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

Nope, you read into

No,
[/quote]
Yep.

[quote]I'm a retard.
[/quote]
There, I fixed that for you, you should be more careful about your
typing, you're missing words and things.

[quote]
I'll restate the issue in a manner that will illustrate my point
for normal people, while further confusing you:

As far as the Merneptah stele goes, pretty much all the
normal people interpret it as a claim, by Merneptah, to
have successfully defended Egyptian territory from
encroachments ("Invasions," if you will) by foreigners. If,
say, an entire group of these foreigners had been
eliminated from Egyptian soil then it would be accurate
to say that they are all gone, even though many, many,
many, more of them might exist elsewhere in the
world...
[/quote]
Except that I'm talking about not what historical context we place the
stele into, but what the stele actually *says*. I know that that is
confusing to you, but do try.

[quote]
Say, psycho breath:
[/quote]
Well, psyche means breath, so that's rather redundant.

Why don't you detail for us where
[quote]these "Israelites" came from before they encroached on
Egyptian territory as you claim? And where did the
survivors go?
[/quote]
That would be going beyond the available evidence. We can make guesses,
but they'd be educated guesses only. Sorry that that's above your head,
but then anything above basic bodily functions are.

[quote]
Going by your insane rantings, we have this "Israel"
blinking into existence around 1200 BC,
[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not....what we do know is that the stele is the earliest
dateable surviving mention of them. As nomads they may have wandered
for millenia outside of Egypt's purview before entering Canaan and
carving out a small chunk for themselves, probably in process of
shifting from nomadic to semi-nomadic, agrarian tribal groups.

[quote]and then
blinking out of existence again...
[/quote]
Nope. But then we know that after 1200 BCE Egyptian influence in the
region waned, so as Egypt withdrew, there can be no encroachment.
Likewise, other groups underwent a significant decrease of influence in
the same period.

[quote]never to be seen or
heard for another, say, 300 years or so.
[/quote]
Were you familiar with world history, this isn't all that unusual. So
here's a challenge for you: how many times are Phoenicians mentioned in
Egyptian or any other records between 1200 BCE and 900 BCE. If they
aren't mentioned at all...does this mean you think they blinked out of
existence for three centuries?
[quote]
I shouldn't have to tell you, but that's one fucked up
position to hold.
[/quote]
Except, as I said, you read things into what I said creating straw men
and then the straw men beat you up. No one holds that position, not
even me.

And, as you no doubt will deny holding
[quote]it, detail for us where they came from BEFORE
Merneptah decided to fight back their incursion, and
where they went afterwards.
[/quote]
See, this is the difference between you and I, a gulf never to be
crossed. I look at evidence and don't go beyond the evidence unless I'm
speculating, and I mark it as a speculation. You on the other hand
continually reject evidence, go beyond it, and jump up and down that no
one can see it but you. I'm not going to "detail" where these people
came from before they were mentioned on the stele because we have no
certain evidence.

Weland...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:41 pm

Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

AH yes,

I'd need to pay a prostitute quite a bit to say those
words...

But, what's this?!?!

STILL no legitimate reasons for not interpreting the Merneptah
stele as mentioning "Israel"?

Why am I a dumb fuckwad? Oh, yes: It's because I am
so monumentally fucked up. Happy Birthday to me.

[/quote]
Once again, I've had to fix your typos. You're welcome.

JTEM...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:35 pm

Guest

Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:

[quote]No need to
[/quote]
It just keeps getting funnier, no matter how many times
you use that line.

Obumhole is a Republican, dipshit.

JTEM...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:37 pm

Guest

Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

[quote]JTEM wrote:
I never said that he forged references, shit for brains, I
said that he forged quotes. And he has in nearly every
exchange we've ever been in, and at at every one since
his "Camels" nonsense.

Poor
[/quote]
You're not contradicting anything I said. Don't worry though,
you'll still be convinced that you utterly refuted me. Nothing
can change that much.... your mental illness, I mean.

JTEM...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:42 pm

Guest

Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:

[quote]JTEM wrote:

If you had even a single legitimate reason for clinging
to your "Israel" fantasy you would have posted it.

You want to "Win" arguments. Your feeble ego can't
even bare to admit mistakes, so you would never pass
on an opportunity to show that you're right. The reason
why you did not post any legitimate reasons is because
you don't have any legitimate reasons. Nobody does.

More projection.
[/quote]
No, it's pretty accurate. You ended the Dura Europa thread
with your forgeries, not admitting your error. The same
was true in the Camels thread. You simply petered out on
your claims regarding the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian
without admitting error, despite your it's not phonetic/it is
phonetic insanity. And here, now, you can't admit that there
is no legitimate reason for interpreting the Merneptah stele
as mentioning "Israel."

Heck, not a one of you has even admitted that it really is
merely interpreted as "Israel,' it doesn't literally say
"Israel"... you've all just kind of stopped arguing your
craziness on that one point.

Nope, you've never been man enough to admit error, and
you never will be.

Page 37 of 46 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 36, 37, 38 ... 44, 45, 46 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:09 am Science Forum Index