 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Israel Finkelstein interview... |
|
Page 4 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weland... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Tom P <th_om_a... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Instruct me,
Okay: Seek professional help, and be sure to tell them
about your sock puppets.
[/quote]
Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic, ol' JStupid opts
out. Figures. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Read this book
You have a lot of faith is a book, huh?
This is a discussion group. Why is it that the only "Cites"
you idiots can find are all offline, and none of you have a
copy?
It's pretty simply, really. If you agree with a book, adopt it's
position and then state your case here. Produce cites to
support any claims you make (no, don't merely quote the
book).
If you can't do that, bugger off. Seriously, why are you here,
in a discussion group, when discussion is the last thing you
want?
Another idiot that pretends to know it all without knowing anything about
the subject.
[/quote]
Well, it is JStupid you're referring to.....
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:31:47 -0400, Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
Irrelevant!
The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you
did go to
court about whether these two existed you would win.
Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear but
seems
to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with the
same
name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore
there was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
Well the guy you just quoted Israel Finkelstein, states in his book
that
both biblical David and Solomon existed.
Now you just insulted him. He presented no physical evidence for
their existence as described therefore he cannot have said they existed.
Please quote what you misread.
How do you know, Giwer? You haven't read the book, yet you make the
claim that, "He presented no physical evidence for their existence as
described therefore he cannot have said they existed."
Settlement patterns are physical evidence, Giwer.
Pottery shards are physical evidence, Giwer.
Inscribed ostraca are physical evidence, Giwer.
Stela are physical evidence, Giwer.
Tombs are physical evidence, Giwer.
Many other artifacts are physical evidence, Giwer. Educate yourself.
In your own words, Giwer, "Please quote what you misread." On what
page and paragraph did Finkelstein make such a claim?
However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
[/quote]
Ok, fair enough to a degree. Let's take another example. Outside
Flixborough in Merry Olde there's a purportedly Anglo-Saxon site showing
occupation from the late seventh century onwards through the medieval
period. There are artifacts, buildings, etc, but nothing that declares
these people were Anglo-Saxons or belonged to a particular A-S kingdom.
So why should we think they were Anglo-Saxons, Martin, or do you
disagree with the description of the inhabitants, and if so, on what
grounds, other than "I don't think so?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Dragonblaze wrote:
[quote]Typical Giwerian double standard. According to Giwer, it's using
references when he quotes (usually misquotes and misunderstands) a
researcher, and an appeal to authority when anyone else does it.
Giwer is incapable of understanding what is the difference between appeal
to authority and providing reference.
[/quote]
The difference is quite simple. In providing a reference one first
presents the facts and gives a source, i.e. reference, for those facts.
Leaving out the facts of interest and giving only the reference is an appeal
to authority.
But you know that.
--
God gave Israel the Ten Commandments because they
were in such desperate need of them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4177
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Mon Oct 19 20:01:57 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Another idiot that pretends
No, seriously, it all has to do with the difference between "fact"
("Evidence") and conclusions, as well as conclusions and opinion.
I used to make a habit of intentionally selecting "cites" from the other
side. I figured that if there was anyone a wingnut would accept it would
be another wingnut. So if we were, say, arguing over the age of
something, or the text on an item, I would produce a wingnut "Cite"
demonstrating the issue.
....but invariably you wingnuts would zero in on the cite's
conclusion, ignoring the details -- the facts/evidence and how they were
arrived at -- insisting that the site supported them.
Of course, everything I just said whizzed right past you, but that can't
be helped...
I would be quite stunned if you had read any book on archeology much less
biblical archeology.
[/quote]
Biblical archaeology hardly qualifies as archaeology. Archaeology is
a science. The bible is an anthology of fantasy fiction.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 20 01:35:06 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2009-10-19, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
Woops! As "Old King Cole" was post-Roman, or late-Roman, the archaeology
to look at for him is late-Roman not pre-Roman. "Coel Hen" certainly
existed, at the end of the Roman occupation, possibly one of the last
official Roman appointees. There are other candidates for the origin of
the character in the 18th century English nursery rhyme and Geoffrye of
Monmouth's 12th century stories.
See eg <http://www.rhymes.org.uk/old_king_cole.htm
But what was he smoking, as tobacco had yet to arrive in Europe[/quote]
--
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 |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland wrote:
[quote]Martin Edwards wrote:
Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:31:47 -0400, Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
Irrelevant!
The question I said what David and Solomon and I suspect if you
did go to
court about whether these two existed you would win.
Why he raised the irrelevant issue of a court is not clear
but seems
to indicate the interviewer is a lawyer.
The point of the archaeology is if there was a person with
the same
name that person was not as described in the bible stories. Therefore
there was no biblical Solomon or biblical David or biblical Abraham.
Well the guy you just quoted Israel Finkelstein, states in his book
that
both biblical David and Solomon existed.
Now you just insulted him. He presented no physical evidence for
their existence as described therefore he cannot have said they
existed.
Please quote what you misread.
How do you know, Giwer? You haven't read the book, yet you make the
claim that, "He presented no physical evidence for their existence as
described therefore he cannot have said they existed."
Settlement patterns are physical evidence, Giwer.
Pottery shards are physical evidence, Giwer.
Inscribed ostraca are physical evidence, Giwer.
Stela are physical evidence, Giwer.
Tombs are physical evidence, Giwer.
Many other artifacts are physical evidence, Giwer. Educate yourself.
In your own words, Giwer, "Please quote what you misread." On what
page and paragraph did Finkelstein make such a claim?
However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
Ok, fair enough to a degree. Let's take another example. Outside
Flixborough in Merry Olde there's a purportedly Anglo-Saxon site showing
occupation from the late seventh century onwards through the medieval
period. There are artifacts, buildings, etc, but nothing that declares
these people were Anglo-Saxons or belonged to a particular A-S kingdom.
So why should we think they were Anglo-Saxons, Martin, or do you
disagree with the description of the inhabitants, and if so, on what
grounds, other than "I don't think so?"
[/quote]
You are well up on recent discoveries. A programme I saw about a
similar site near Bradwell suggested that the same people (generations
of them) were there all the time, but the language changed. Eg after
the Romans left (and they have still to apologize for that), North
Germany was the nearest trading partner, so Anglo-Saxon became the
language of choice. The Normans we know about. They fairly quickly
learned English and turned out to be quite nice after all.
--
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 |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic,
[/quote]
You've not only been given that opportunity countless times,
I'll give you yet another opportunity right now:
Detail for us the legitimate, scholarly reasons for interpreting
the Merneptah stele as mentioning "Israel." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote]Another idiot that pretends
[/quote]
You've got it wrong. This really is a discussion group. I'm not
kidding.
If you have a book whose position you want to adopt and
argue, then do so. But stop being an asshole and demanding
that everyone else read it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote]I would be quite stunned if you had read any book
[/quote]
This isn't a literary society. It's a discussion group. If
you've adopted the position of a book and want to
argue it here, then do so. Otherwise, please get a
clue and stop being an asshole, asshole. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Well, it is
[/quote]
It's Larry Swain aka Weland, the loser that isn't man
enough to admit that he was wrong, again!
You could prove everything I've been saying about you
wrong, simply by detailing for us truly legitimate reasons
for interpreting the Mernaptah stele as mentioning "Israel,"
reasons that don't assume that as Israel existed at that
time.
There's a reason you haven't done this, and anyone who
isn't emotionally disturbed knows EXACTLY what that
reason is, pussy boy. And that's the fact that there is no
reason. It's all wishful thinking.
Go on, pretend you're a man and admit it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:37:35 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Another idiot that pretends
No, seriously, it all has to do with the difference between "fact"
("Evidence") and conclusions, as well as conclusions and opinion.
I used to make a habit of intentionally selecting "cites" from the other
side. I figured that if there was anyone a wingnut would accept it would
be another wingnut. So if we were, say, arguing over the age of
something, or the text on an item, I would produce a wingnut "Cite"
demonstrating the issue.
....but invariably you wingnuts would zero in on the cite's
conclusion, ignoring the details -- the facts/evidence and how they were
arrived at -- insisting that the site supported them.
Of course, everything I just said whizzed right past you, but that can't
be helped...
I would be quite stunned if you had read any book on archeology much less
biblical archeology.
Biblical archaeology hardly qualifies as archaeology. Archaeology is
a science. The bible is an anthology of fantasy fiction.
[/quote]
Like I said Matt Giwer, you have no idea on the subject. Clearly you have
never studied or read anything on the subject. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:44:29 -0500, Weland wrote:
[quote]SolomonW wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Read this book
You have a lot of faith is a book, huh?
This is a discussion group. Why is it that the only "Cites"
you idiots can find are all offline, and none of you have a
copy?
It's pretty simply, really. If you agree with a book, adopt it's
position and then state your case here. Produce cites to
support any claims you make (no, don't merely quote the
book).
If you can't do that, bugger off. Seriously, why are you here,
in a discussion group, when discussion is the last thing you
want?
Another idiot that pretends to know it all without knowing anything about
the subject.
Well, it is JStupid you're referring to.....
[/quote]
Indeed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote]Tell me why U should discuss something
[/quote]
This is a discussion group. If you don't want to discuss
something then you have no reason to be here, other
than a deep emotional flaw which compels you to seek
conflict.
There's no getting around this: This is a discussion group. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Whiskers wrote:
On 2009-10-19, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
However this may look, I feel I must come to his aid. Everything you
cite is simply evidence that people were there. Are pre-Roman remains
in Britain proof that Old King Cole existed? Do we know what key his
fiddlers three played in? That should get Vince out of hibernation.
Woops! As "Old King Cole" was post-Roman, or late-Roman, the archaeology
to look at for him is late-Roman not pre-Roman. "Coel Hen" certainly
existed, at the end of the Roman occupation, possibly one of the last
official Roman appointees. There are other candidates for the origin of
the character in the 18th century English nursery rhyme and Geoffrye of
Monmouth's 12th century stories. See eg
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/old_king_cole.htm
But what was he smoking, as tobacco had yet to arrive in Europe
[/quote]
Neither had pipes.
Opium addiction. Old World craftsmanship combined with New World
innovation.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Oct 20 05:20:41 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:45 pm
|
|