 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » What if there really were evidence for Biblical... |
|
Page 39 of 46 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 44, 45, 46 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weland... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Oh indeed! You are
Nope, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel... but
plenty of mindless ad hominem.
[/quote]
Whines the Prince of ad hominem, who has yet to post a single message
without ad hominem in it. Not one single message ever.
But one wonders why young JStupid has never yet provided a single valid
reason for not seeing it as Israel on the stele, not once. He just
stamps his wee foot, sticks his thumbs in his ears and screams
"NONONONNO!" as loud as he can. Wonder why he doesn't answer the
challenges regarding the Libyans. Craven Jester JStupid. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
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.
Edited.
As I pointed out elsewhere, you're a lying sack of shit.
[/quote]
Well, as you claimed elsewhere. Unproven of course. But your lack of
truthfulness is well known. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]
Here, I picked my ass and ate it. Yum.
Enjoyed it too.
Except that I'm talking about not what historical
context we place the stele into, but what the stele
actually *says*.
So your claim can't stand if it's placed within it's proper
context... check.
[/quote]
Non sequitur. People with two brain cells know that historians don't
believe everything on the stele, but since you don't have that, it is no
wonder that you commit yet another fallacy.
[quote]
I know that that is confusing to you, but do try.
It's not confusing at all.
[/quote]
It obviously, since you had to commit a fallacy to even get this
far--unless of course we giveyou the benefit of the doubt and think you
are doing all this fallacious thinking on purpose....but for that we'd
need evidence of thought from you and that has never been demonstrated.
It's stupid, but not confusing.
[quote]Context is EVERYTHING, and you're ignoring the
context.
[/quote]
You're confusing modern historiography that seeks to reconstruct the
events leading up to the battle, the battle itself, and its aftermath
from this inscription and others with the actual statements on the
actual Stele in question. You wish to conflate the two. I keep them
separate, never confusing the one with the other.
[quote]
Say, psycho breath:
Well, psyche means breath,
Not exactly close... not even within 10 zipcodes,
[/quote]
Classical Greek another language you don't know, check.
[quote]I guess there's no point in explaining further, you being an
idiot.
[/quote]
Says the guy telling the world that a word has been translated
incorrectly even though he doesn't know the language or the
script....you know, I think we've just hit on the source of JStupid's
problem: he decided he knew more brain surgery than the brain surgeon
and operated on himself, giving himself a lobotomy in the process. A
modern Greek-style tragedy, example of hubris.
[quote]
Why don't you detail for us where
these "Israelites" came from before they encroached on
Egyptian territory as you claim? And where did the
survivors go?
That would be going beyond the available evidence.
Restated: There is no evidence for these "Israelites" existing
ANYWHERE before or after the date of the Merneptah stele.
[/quote]
Oh, poor child. No evidence of them before, but evidence of the Stele
so they existed at the time and there is evidence after. Oh well,
apparently you're ignorance is catching up with you.
[quote]
snip typical JStupidery
We can make guesses,
We don't have to guess. It's not like there's a shortage of
archaeology, there's plenty of it. The ground is littered with
it. The problem isn't a lack of "Evidence," it's that none of
this evidence supports the existence of any "Israel."
[/quote]
Yep., so? That doesn't change the name on the Stele. Further, nomadic
tribes by their nature leave a very light footprint next to impossible
to discover. If these people were previously nomadic, at least in part,
it is little wonder that they left little archaeologically.
[quote]
Going by your insane rantings, we have this "Israel"
blinking into existence around 1200 BC,
Maybe, maybe not....
We definitely don't have it. It didn't exist. It didn't exist a
hundred years prior -- not on the Levant, not in Egypt, not
anywhere -- and it didn't exist 100 years later. It just plain
never existed.
[/quote]
Evidence? There's a huge difference between stating that X didn't
exist, and that there is no evidence for X existing. Naturally, you
don't know that difference, but there it is. You're claim has no basis
to it.
[quote]
what we do know is that the stele is the earliest
dateable surviving mention of them.
This would be the stele which you could not articulate even
a single legitimate reason for claiming that it mentions
"Israel."
Actually did several legitimate reasons, all of which stood up to your[/quote]
scrutiny and fallacies.
[quote]
and then
blinking out of existence again...
Nope. But then we know that after 1200 BCE Egyptian
influence in the region waned, so as Egypt withdrew,
there can be no encroachment.
Maybe idiots won't notice that you're talking about Egypt and not
any Israel, but you're never going to get away with that kind of
bullshit with me.
Of course....who else left written records in that region from[/quote]
1200-1000? If you want to look for written records than you go where
the written records are. If the record writers are withdrawing from the
area and not interacting with it (as we know happened in this period)
there is no reason to suspect that they'd have detailed records of the
area they left.
[quote]There is no "Israel" in the archaeological record.
[/quote]
Depends on the period.
[quote]Period.
[/quote]
And
[quote]as for Egypt leaving the Levant: They were clearly there at
the time when the mythical Solomon was supposed to be
leading "Israel."
[/quote]
Read up on Egyptian history.
[quote]
Likewise, other groups underwent a significant decrease
of influence in the same period.
There was the 12th century destruction, probably precipitated
by a major climate altering event... like a super volcano or
asteroid impact (almost certainly a volcanic eruption).
[/quote]
You got a fact right!!! OH JSTUPID I'm so proud of you!
[quote]
Such events are not conducive to nation building, as you
require.
[/quote]
What makes you think I require anything?
[quote]Just the opposite. They promote chaos.
[/quote]
Rather my point, O Moronic Spouter
[quote]
never to be seen or
heard for another, say, 300 years or so.
Were you familiar with world history, this isn't all that unusual.
I am familiar,
[/quote]
Obviously not, you get far too many things wrong to make that claim.
[quote]and it is unusual... especially so given the
circumstances. Again, it's not that there's any lack of evidence.
There's been plenty pulled out of the ground. Your problem is
that absolutely none of this evidence supports the fantasy of
a nation of Israel existing.
[/quote]
Name 5 digs in the area of central Canaan that go back as far as 1200
BCE. Go ahead, JStupid, we'll wait. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Tiglath wrote:
[quote]JTEM oozes canine loyalty to the National Socialism mentality firmly
entrenched in the bunker of ignorance.
[/quote]
Haaretz
Mon., October 26, 2009 Cheshvan 8, 5770 | Israel Time: 21:01 (EST+7)
Last update - 13:47 26/10/2009
Arab MK brands Lieberman's party 'fascist' over Nakba bill
By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent
An Israeli Arab lawmaker on Monday lashed out at Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman's party over its sponsorship of a bill that would outlaw state
funding for the commemoration of Israel's establishment as a catastrophe or
"Nakba" for Palestinians.
"One cannot ignore the context and the initiators of the law. The identity
of its proponents [is like that of] the party to which they belong: the
Jewish fascist party," said Ahmed Tibi, the United Arab List-Ta'al chairman,
referring to the rightist Yisrael Beiteinu.
He made the comments during a discussion held by the Knesset's Constitution,
Law and Justice Committee.
The new bill is narrower in scope than the original, which would have
imposed up to three years in prison for anyone marking Independence Day as a
day of mourning. The amended bill would prohibit state funding for
activities that deny Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
During the discussion, Tibi added that the proposed law reminded him of the
"thought police" in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984.
===
Haaretz
Mon., October 26, 2009 Cheshvan 8, 5770 | Israel Time: 21:01 (EST+7)
Last update - 16:40 26/10/2009
Report: Turkey PM says Lieberman threatened to nuke Gaza
By Haaretz Service
Turkey's prime minister has further inflamed simmering Israel-Turkey
tensions, claiming that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened to use
nuclear weapons against Gaza, The Guardian reported Monday.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as making the allegation in an interview
published by the British newspaper. The comments came amid a crisis in ties
between the two allies, which erupted earlier in the month after Turkey
banned Israel from participating in a NATO air force drill.
The crisis was deepened two weeks ago, when Ankara refused to take off the
air a television drama that depicts Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian
children.
In the interview, Erdogan reportedly insisted that the Turkey-Israel
strategic alliance remained alive, but chided Lieberman over the alleged
nuclear threat regarding the Gaza Strip.
The Turkish leader also stressed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
who has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, was a "friend" of
Turkey's.
"There is no doubt he is our friend," Erdogan was quoted as saying. "As a
friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at
all."
He reportedly rejected on Western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear
weapon, saying: "Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are
working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only."
Pro-Islam Turks protest 'Israel violence in Temple Mount'
Some 500 pro-Islamic Turks have held an anti-Israel protest in Istanbul over
violence at a Jerusalem holy site claimed by both Arabs and Jews.
The protesters on Monday marched toward the heavily guarded Israeli
Consulate and burned an Israeli flag, chanting 'we will protect Al-Aqsa
mosque'. Muslims regard Al-Aqsa as Islam's third-holiest site.
Relations between Israel and Turkey - a key Muslim ally - have soured since
Israel's war against Islamic militants in Gaza at the beginning of this
year.
Earlier this month, Turkey canceled a military exercise in which Israeli
pilots were planned to participate. Tensions deepened after Turkey's
state-run TV aired a drama series that portrays Israeli soldiers as cruel
and repressive.
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Tue Oct 27 02:07:23 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 3:07 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart... at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
On Oct 25, 3:39 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart... at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
If you miss this one, you'll never get another one:
Is that a promise?
Yes: as I said, Geocities is no more. It may rise again after three
days, but I'm not betting on it.
Splendid. At the same level of relevance as most of your comments,
you may like to know that the New Zealand wombat consumes 8.5 lb. of
grass per day on average.
There are no native mammals in New Zealand. That is why there are so[/quote]
many flightless birds, from several different families. No, wait, God
created them that way. Mea Culpa.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[---snip fallacious argument, again---]
[/quote]
See how JStupid craves our attention? Let's put up the valid argument
again:
[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]
You really are an idiot, it's not just an act. Remember
that you're supposed to be coming up with legitimate
reasons for interpreting "Israel" on the stele, and
thus far everything you've stated it either fallacious or
entirely irrelevant.
[/quote]
Well, so you claim, but proving it is another matter. Of course the
Prince of Fallacies, our Jester JStupid, wouldn't know a valid or
relevant argument if it came up and introduced itself.
[quote]
Again, you would get thrown of of any decent high school
debating team for trying to pull such nonsense.
[/quote]
Like you were?
[quote]
It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
As I pointed out, there are 7 signs making up the word on
the stele, plus the literal mark and the determinatives, and
NOT the six you identify.
[/quote]
So identify them, as you've been challenged to do. Go on, show us your
great skill with hieroglyphics.
[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 don't claim to find a similar word,
[/quote]
Because it isn't a similar word. It's a name. It's the same name
appearing in different languages.
[quote]and it's a lame> rationalization.
[/quote]
Waving your hands and applying pejorative labels doesn't make
comparative phonology and linguistics go away.
[quote]
We would be shocked if we couldn't find a similarly spelled
or pronounced word in another language, given all the
languages and the centuries we're dealing with.
[/quote]
Oh, indeed....except that a) this is a fallacy arguing from something so
general to a specific situations and b) we aren't just talking about
"similarly spelled or pronounced words": we're talking about what is not
a native Egyptian word designating a people in central Canaan being
matched in other neighboring languages designating a people in central
Canaan. I suppose you could claim that "Germany" and "Germania" aren't
related, but, well, that would be stupid.
[quote]Even so, you
don't claim to find such a word... even as you claim to find one.
[/quote]
There, there...spinning yourself dizzy constructing your straw
man....oh, careful, this one's got a mean right hook!
[quote]
Your so-called "Evidence" is a small number highly problematic
inscriptions which, oddly enough, only ever speak of your
"Israel" or your "Israeli kings" in the past tense.
[/quote]
Not very problematic at all, and as for the tense...I suppose you're
going to claim now that Libyans and Merneptah are all dead since they're
referred to the past tense too.
[quote]
And it is odd, as the claim amounts to a prosperous kingdom
existing for some years without creating any records of it's
own, AND this impossible claim is now "Proof" that the Merneptah
stele should be read as "Israel."
[/quote]
Now that's a straw man of huge proportions since I've never said
anything about a prosperous kingdom existing for some years etc. The
reading on the stele is based on linguistics, the language, and the
script.
[quote]It's monumental in it's stupidity, but it is what you're claiming.
[/quote]
As noted, you're misrepresented....typical of you.
[quote]
So as proof, we have the name itself,
That's utterly circular.
[/quote]
Nope. Observing that your user name here is JTEM is proof that your
user name here is JTEM. That's fact, not circular. The stele says
"yisra3r", that's the name of this group in Egyptian designating a
people in central Canaan.
Again, you're claim is that these are
[quote]your legitimate reasons for interpreting the word as "Israel,"
[/quote]
More specifically, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and
looks like a duck, and swims like a duck and its DNA is that of a duck,
you likely have a specimen of the Anatidae on your hands.
[quote]yet you're claiming that the name (i.e. your interpretation of
the name) is proof that it is.
[/quote]
Except that the issue I was addressing was what you raised writing as
gymbunny: that the conclusion that it says Israel is based on a
presupposition of the existence of Israel. But that isn't true: we have
the name on the stele; we can read that with no presuppositions about
people at all. Determining that the stele reads "yisraer", and refers
to a people in central Canaan has nothing to do with a presupposition
about the existence of Israel.
[quote]
comparative phonology,
There's nothing to compare it to! What's more, nobody
claims that there will be anything to compare it to for
hundreds of years, and in a different language no less!
[/quote]
A very clear demonstration that you've no clue about linguistics or even
what comparative phonology is. Your ignorance is showing, Jester
JStupid! LOL!!!
[quote]
Sorry, fool, but the fact that it takes you another 300
years before you come across anything else you can
shoehorn your "Israel" on is pretty strong proof that it
wasn't there!
[/quote]
And again shows ignorance (much less double standards!) A linguistic
study on the word isn't dependent on time. Diachronic linguistics and
philology study languages across millenia as a matter of course.
[quote]
comparing the document to documents of other kingdoms,
This is senseless.
[/quote]
Only because you're ignorant.
[quote]What other kingdoms? What other documents?
[/quote]
More from Egypt, the Assyrians, the Aramaeans,
<snip Jstupidery>
[quote]authorities,
"Authorities" are able to articulate intelligent, plausible
and (most of all) legitimate reasons for making their
determinations. If they don't, then it's a form of fallacious
argument known as "Argument from authority."
[/quote]
Its not up to us to repeat and repeat and repeat what is widely
published and available. The arguments have been summarized for you:
the identification is entirely based in linguistics. But since you
remain ignorant of the language, the script, and linguistics, and refuse
to avail yourself of the references provided to you, it is no surprise
that the articulated reasons for making the identification remain
unknown to you. That the authorities on the subject think this and have
articulated their reasons is true and is a piece of evidence.
On the other hand, you have asserted that communis opinio is wrong, but
have not been able to do other than say "Israel didn't exist, therefore
the inscription can't say Israel", textbook circular reasoning. We
still await a single valid reason from you why the stele doesn't refer
to Israel.
[quote]and then there's the text of the bible itself
So you're saying that your interpretation of the Merneptah
stele is ultimately predicated on the bible.
[/quote]
No...JStupid's reading comprehension: FAIL. I explicitly said that the
last is the bible itself, but that it is also icing on the cake...i. e.
not a necessary component and the last thing you put on the cake....not
its foundation. As you would say, "Duh."
[quote]
when it is treated as any other historical document,
Religious texts, as a rule, aren't treated as historical
documents, because they are not historical documents.
[/quote]
Depends very much on the text. For example, the Merneptah Stele is
obviously a religious text, not only dedicated to the gods, but found in
a temple, and describes the actions of gods in its text. Yet, you take
it as a historical document referring to an actual battle and the
Egyptian's victory. You just have a blind eye when it comes to the
biblical texts.
[quote]
There's no reason to make an exception for the bible, as
you insist (while denying).
[/quote]
Been over this dozens of times...but you are slow on the uptake.
So JStupid: prove it wrong (psssstttt, big difference between proving
and claiming, and a big difference between valid argument and fallacy).
The identification is based on comparative phonology (a discipline
whose definition much less methodologies you are ignorant of as you
showed above) and comparative philology (ditto here). Since you do not
know the languages, the scripts, or the linguistic methodologies, it is
unlikely you'll make a case.
On the other hand, you've not provided a single valid reason for
doubting the identification other than shouting really loudly. Nor have
you addressed the challenge given you to tell us about the Libyans on
the stele and why you think those have been identified correctly. It's
because you are a coward to admit that you can not address these issues. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]more projection
[/quote]
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
....and you'll never come up with any. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
more projection
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
[/quote]
Oh, already done and you're silly-assed fallacious objections shown for
what they were causing a great deal of laughter.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
more projection
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Oh, already done and you're silly-assed fallacious objections shown for
what they were causing a great deal of laughter....
[/quote]
On the other hand, we await a single valid argument as to why it doesn't
refer to an Israel. Somehow none has been forthcoming. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Weland wrote:
[quote]Weland wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
more projection
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting the Merneptah
stele as mentioning Israel.
Oh, already done and you're silly-assed fallacious objections shown for
what they were causing a great deal of laughter....
On the other hand, we await a single valid argument as to why it doesn't
refer to an Israel. Somehow none has been forthcoming.
[/quote]
Why will you people not tell Finkelstein what is meant by an Israel
in the 12th c. BC?
Why will you not tell us what that word means?
I do prefer Israel to mean donkeyfuckers just to keep in neutral.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Nov 2 03:10:30 EST 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Oh, already done
[/quote]
No. Instead you repeated the usual case for the existence
of Israel, which is only casually related to the question you
were challenged to address.
HINT: The fact that you imagine a completely different word
as "Israel," written in a completely different language, found
in a completely different place, and dating to a point hundreds
of years later really IS NOT a legitimate reason for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Moron.
Heck, you didn't even do a very good job with the "Israel did
exist" argument you posted, instead of responding to the
challenge concerning the Merneptah stele. You were preaching
to the converted. To be effective you would have had to refute
the known objections to your position instead of pretending that
they didn't exist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]On the other hand, we await a single valid argument
as to why it doesn't refer to an Israel.
[/quote]
No you don't.
The fact that it doesn't say "Israel" -- that it's only
interpreted as Israel -- is self evident. Besides the
fact that the ancient Egyptians simply never left
us with names in perfect phonetic English, they
didn't even have a letter 'L'. Hence, it is physically
impossible for the name "Israel" to appear on the
stone.
The question was always WHY is the word that
appears on the stele INTERPRETED as "Israel,"
a question that has never once received a legitimate
answer.
If there ever is a legitimate answer I will address it,
but thus far not one human being on the face of the
planet -- regardless of education or experience --
has ever produced one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:08 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
HINT: The fact that you imagine a completely different word
as "Israel," written in a completely different language, found
in a completely different place, and dating to a point hundreds
of years later really IS NOT a legitimate reason for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Moron.
[/quote]
There he is signing posts again.
We know what you are, moron. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Oops, no, still no legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Oh, already done
No. Instead you repeated the usual case for the existence
of Israel,
[/quote]
Nope. I've made no claim about the existence of Israel as related to
reading the stele. I have made comments about what results for the
existence of Israel when we read what the stele says. But that's
different.
which is only casually related to the question you
[quote]were challenged to address.
HINT: The fact that you imagine a completely different word
as "Israel," written in a completely different language, found
in a completely different place, and dating to a point hundreds
of years later really IS NOT a legitimate reason for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning Israel.
Moron.
[/quote]
And so, because JStupid, the great and famous international linguist who
knows no language but his own, and even that not well, declares that
that historical linguistics whose fields he doesn't even know exist much
less understand is to be rejected. LOL!!!! What a maroon! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Yes we do. The only "evidence" you've presented is
a circular argument
[/quote]
So you don't know what a "circular argument" is, either.
Not exactly shocking.
I'd ask you to spell this out for us, but we both know that
would be a waste of time. Instead, I'll explain it to you,
knowing you won't grasp it, so that if any normal people
read this thread they can see what a mental case you
truly are.
We'll start with what a circular argument is, and then move
on to what i argued. First, the circular argument, as per
about.com:
: "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of
: its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof,
: it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby
: inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it
: has not been settled.
http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm
Now, as for what I said...
I stated three points. The first was that the ancient Egyptians
did not make a habit of leaving us texts written in perfect
phonetic English.
Is this "Circular"? Not at all.
Next I pointed out that the ancient Egyptians didn't even
have an 'L' so it would be impossible for them to write
the word "Israel."
Circular? No.
Finally I concluded by pointing out the bleeding obvious: That
instead of any ancient Egyptian scribe writing "Israel," what
we have here is a case where people are INTERPRETING a
certain word as meaning "Israel."
Circular? Again, no. "Circular" would require it to be predicated
on itself, while the conclusion here ("It's merely interpreted as
Israel") is actually predicated on the prior two points -- that the
ancient Egyptians didn't leave us with words in perfect phonetic
English, and couldn't in this case even if they wanted to, as they
had no 'L'.
This is not to say that there have been no circular arguments
posted here. Here's an unusually transparent circular argument:
: Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
: It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/44d7f473644827b6?hl=en&dmode=source
You're welcome, shit for brains. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:37 am
|
|