 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Israel Finkelstein interview... |
|
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Matt Giwer... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Weland wrote:
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?"
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.
[/quote]
One notes the absense of evidence in the matter of A-S is conclusive
in the matter of Israel.
But the manner of discussion is to weave an intricate set of
relationships in argument until one has to agree on Israel in return for an
agreement on another issue.
Argumentation is not evidence. Arguments are not commparable. Only
evidence is comparable.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Tue Oct 20 05:24:42 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:37:35 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
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.
Like I said Matt Giwer, you have no idea on the subject. Clearly you have
never studied or read anything on the subject.
[/quote]
I do know that archaeology is a science. I do know constitutes a
science. I do know that consulting an anthology of fantasy fiction is
analogous to consulting the writings of Sir Isaac Newton on Alchemy as a
guide to research in chemistry.
There is no intrinsic difference between the two.
But you know that.
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 20 05:31:12 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:38:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
[quote]SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
I would be quite stunned if you had read any book
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.
[/quote]
Tell me why U should discuss something with a person like yourself who
knows nothing. I am not what you need a teacher. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-20, Martin Edwards <big_mart_98 at (no spam) Yahoo.com> 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]
1) Europeans were probably smoking other stuff before tobacco arrived.
2) Old King Cole's pipe was probably some sort of flute or recorder, or
possibly a bag-pipe, not a smoking instrument. He was making music. We
still have "pipe bands" today, and "pipers" in military bands.
(I know there's a silly 19th century illustration with him wielding a
churchwarden, but that's just an ignorant illustrator).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:09 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.
Oh my, how witty.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Whiskers wrote:
On 2009-10-16, Matthias M. Giwer <matt at (no spam) localhost> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:32 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[...]
He also declares he has no idea what was meant by Israelite in the
12th c. BC as the reason he rejects the inscription in Egypt.
Yet people here are claiming to know what it meant in that
century. I ask them how they know that Finkelstein does not know.
[...]
He doesn't reject the Merneptah stele's reference to Israel; quite
the opposite:
Now you are trying to argue the beliefs of a self described biblical
archaeologist.
Astonishing how quickly Dr Finkelstein was transformed from an ally of
Matt Giwer who believes -- like Giwer-- that no Solomon ever existed and
no temple ever existed, into Giwer's enemy between September 12 and
September 15, 2009.
I find it fascinating you can go from Finkelstein agreeing a person
with the name Solomon *may* have existed but be nothing like the person of
that name as described in the stories to a belief he said the BIBLICAL
Solomon existed.
Even that bit of Giwerian Gobbledygook betrays your evolution concerning[/quote]
Finkelstein, Giwer.
Where exactly do you get the idea that "Finkelstein agreeing a person
with the name Solomon *may* have existed"?
Read his 2006 book "David and Solomon" and you should observe that
Finkelstein and Silberman unequivocally support the existence of Solomon.
[quote]It is also quite fascinating I *only* mentioned him for his
formulation of the above statement to show how it avoids annoying the
people
who want to believe and that you demonstrate that is what happens from
reading his words.
Actually, you just lied again, Giwer. You introduced Finkelstein in[/quote]
"The Delian Scam" thread as someone who agreed that Solomon never existed.
[quote]Of course you purpose is to preserve your beliefs so such
desperation is understandable.
It doesn't matter what my purpose is or is not. You lied, Giwer.[/quote]
[quote]Now why do you not scamper away and spend hours collecting things
that demonstrate I did not more than I have said.
Trying to restrict basic liberties again just like the rest of the Nazi[/quote]
scum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]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...
Settlement patterns are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.[/quote]
Pottery shards are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Inscribed ostraca are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Stela are physical evidence, young JTEM the nincompoop.
Those bits of physical evidence are all introduced and discussed as the
reasons for drawing certain archaeological and historical conclusions in
the 2006 book "David and Solomon" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Of course one must read the book to know this. And apparently young
JTEM the nincompoop believe it is appropriate to discuss the content of
a book even though he never read the book, eh, young JTEM the nincompoop? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:42 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.
Not quite.[/quote]
Actually, that body of physical artifacts in addition to textual
description is evidence of a particular group of people in a particular
location who wrote in a specific script during a particular time frame.
Specific people by certain given names are mentioned as having
performed certain deeds in a certain place, at a certain time, at a
certain location. Occasionally, even motives for certain deeds are given.
That is more than merely "evidence that people were there." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, 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?
True, all of the above constitute physical evidence.
True, none of the above constitute physical evidence of an Israel as
described in the bible.
I never asserted such a claim. Therefore I will not defend it.[/quote]
[quote]Thus there is still no evidence of biblical Israel.
I described what it would be like if there actually had been an
Israel as described in the bible. Why can't you believers point to it?
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matthias M. Giwer wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Tom P wrote:
JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Israel Finkelstein
How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein
believes that King David and Solomon existed?
I can only guess, but it does refute that "Tom P." mental
case,
How so, young JTEM the nincompoop? Try to be specific.
Remember, I didn't call Finkelstein a member of the Copenhagen
School. Giwer did.
Never did. Never would. Never gave the name of any "member" of
the so-called Copenhagen school. Never could as it has no
membership roles.
Ah, Giwer, more Giwerian Gobbledygook and hair splitting will not
cover your lie. May I direct your attention to your post of
September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these words:
"You can lie to your victims but there was no Solomon much less a
temple built by Solomon."
"You are clearly a con artist."
On September 11, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in
reply:
"Care to quote two, or even one, adherent to the Copenhagen School
who denies the existence of Solomon?"
September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these
words in response:
"Why would I care? As for people who do, Silberman and Finkelstein
for two israeli [sic] archaeologists."
On September 12, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
Sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Tom P posted these words in
reply to the Giwerian Gobbledygook of September 12, 2009:
"Oh really? I don't think Finkelstein and Silberman ever denied the
existence of Solomon. Can you quote and cite Finkelstein or
Silberman where you believe they deny the existence of Solomon?"
"I happen to have "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" in
front of me. I have read both, closely. I can't seem to find the
passage wherein they deny the existence of Solomon. What page or
pages do you find that information on, Giwer?"
"Or are you lying again? If so, you just got caught. You can't
resist the baited hook, can you, Giwer?"
"This appears on page 20 of 'David and Solomon,' actually these are
the last two sentences in the second paragraph. 'To make a long
story short, we simply do not know the exact number of years the
David and Solomon each ruled. The most we can say is that they
probably both reigned sometime in the tenth century.'"
"Not exactly a denial that Solomon ever lived, is it, Giwer?"
"Actually, the conclusion of Finkelstein and Silberman is not only
that Solomon lived, but that Solomon actually reigned during the
10th century BCE. Not my words, Giwer. Not my sources or story
either. You, Giwer, made the asinine claim that Finkelstein and
Silberman claim Solomon never lived, as I knew you would when I
posed the question yesterday. Giwer, you are terribly predictable.
You should have read what they actually wrote before you commented."
September 15, 2009, in the thread "The Delian Scam" on
sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient, Matt Giwer posted these
words in response:
"If you mean someone else named Solomon instead of the one in the
bible then you are playing bait and switch."
"They clearly state the Solomon described in the bible did not exist."
Uh, actually, no, they do not, Giwer. They never did. On the
contrary, they confirm the existence of a king of Judea named
Solomon who reigned during the 10th century. Perhaps you shouldn't
discuss authors whose work you have never read, eh Giwer?
Did anyone else notice how Giwer's argument evolved from "As for
people who do [deny the existence of Solomon], Silberman and
Finkelstein for two israeli [sic] archaeologists" to "They clearly
state the Solomon described in the bible did not exist." Evidence
does matter, Giwer. Don't you wish that just for once the evidence
would support your bogus kook theories instead of proving your
theories are bogus and kooky?
Have you consulted your physician about your memory loss, Giwer?
You seem to forget what you have posted here within a matter of days
or sometimes hours. There are drugs now that can possibly prevent
or slow any further memory loss you are clearly experiencing, Giwer.
Correct. I gave no names.
Ah, Giwer, why do you bother to lie when the evidence which exposes
your lies is so easy to recall from archive posts?
Who was it who introduced the names Finkelstein and Silberman into our
discussion?
It was Matt Giwer.
It is also agreed I did not call them members of that thing called
the Copenhagen school.
By whom?[/quote]
[quote]You should have read their books before you introduced them and so
staunchly told your readers what Finkelstein and Silberman had to say
about Solomon. Instead, you peddled the usual Giwerian Gobbledygook.
Therefore you are again correct. I gave no names of any minimalists.
Only because you mistook Finkelstein and Silberman for minimalists.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Given the opportunity to discuss something on topic,
You've not only been given that opportunity countless times,
I'll give you yet another opportunity right now:
[/quote]
Already done. Just because you keep ignoring the post doesn't mean it
wasn't posted.
So hey, how about you tell us whether you think the Libyans are
mentioned on the stele. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
I would be quite stunned if you had read any book
This isn't a literary society. It's a discussion group.
[/quote]
One in which JStupid demonstrates many times a day that he's uninformed
because he doesn't read books and shouldn't be discussing topics he
knows nothing about. Now he justifies his lack of reading by retorting:
"It's not a literary society, but a discussion group!" HILARIOUS!
JUSTIFICATION FOR SHEER JSTUPIDERY! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Well, it is
It's Larry Swain aka Weland, the loser that isn't man
enough to admit that he was wrong, again!
[/quote]
You can always tell when the craven JStupid has lost: JStupid who hides
behind a false name likes to use my real name, a name I have publicly
identified with my sign on when I changed providers a year ago, cause he
thinks he's got something by pointing out that Weland is Larry Swain.
OOO, the obvious gets him bonus points!
[quote]You could prove everything I've been saying about you
wrong, simply by detailing for us truly legitimate reasons
[/quote]
That was easy and its already been done. I even pointed you to the
appropriately titled post. Somehow you keep missing it. No one else
has though. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Weland wrote:
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?"
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.
[/quote]
But you've avoided the question. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, 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?
True, all of the above constitute physical evidence.
True, none of the above constitute physical evidence of an Israel as
described in the bible.
I never asserted such a claim. Therefore I will not defend it.
[/quote]
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
--
There are only two kinds of Jews. Those who
love Israel and those who hate themselves.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4179
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Wed Oct 21 01:03:59 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:20 pm
|
|