 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Israel Finkelstein interview... |
|
Page 6 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| SolomonW... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:34:05 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
Checkout circular logic because that is your mistake here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| SolomonW... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
[quote]SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Tell me why U should discuss something
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.
[/quote]
Where your analysis falls down is that many people here beside you do know
what they are talking about. So I am happy to discuss with them. You need
to study a lot before I talk to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:35:22 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
SolomonW <Solom... at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
Tell me why U should discuss something
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.
Where your analysis falls down is that many people here beside you do know
what they are talking about. So I am happy to discuss with them. You need
to study a lot before I talk to you.
[/quote]
Now why would ol' JStupid actually want to do that? Were you around for
his citation of a book he claimed proved that the Bible was the template
for deciphering Akkadian only to find that the author wasn't talking
about deciphering Akkadian at all but about historical events and listed
three sources for determining those events, one being the biblical text,
the Assyrian inscriptions, and Egyptian records. Why would ol' JStupid
the Jester need to study when he can just simply make it up? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
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.
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
Never posted such a claim. Thus your point is moot and merely Giwerian[/quote]
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
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.
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
Never posted such a claim. Thus your point is moot and merely Giwerian
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant.
[/quote]
Thanks to Weland we are now all on the same page.
There was no biblical United Kingdom of David and Solomon and you
did not intend to imply there was any physical evidence for its existence as
decribed in the bible.
Finally we are in agreement.
Thank you for your time.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sun Oct 25 01:26:21 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
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.
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
Never posted such a claim. Thus your point is moot and merely Giwerian
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant.
Thanks to Weland we are now all on the same page.
There was no biblical United Kingdom of David and Solomon and you
did not intend to imply there was any physical evidence for its
existence as
decribed in the bible.
Finally we are in agreement.
Thank you for your time.
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know[/quote]
what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the Euphrates"?
Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of David"
by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th century?
Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
"magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
Do the sites of Hazor, Megiddo, Dan, Arad, Beersheba, Samaria, and
Shechem count as "monumental"?
All of those need to be defined before you can presume agreement with me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
[quote]Matt Giwer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
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.
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
Never posted such a claim. Thus your point is moot and merely Giwerian
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant.
Thanks to Weland we are now all on the same page.
There was no biblical United Kingdom of David and Solomon and you
did not intend to imply there was any physical evidence for its existence
as
decribed in the bible.
Finally we are in agreement.
Thank you for your time.
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me.
[/quote]
You do know what the united kingdom of David and Solomon means, no?
So now you know what is meant. That united kingdom never existed.
Thank Weland for clarifying the matter.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun Oct 25 18:41:22 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Edwards... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom P wrote:
[quote]
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know
what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
[/quote]
[quote]Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
[/quote]
How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
[quote]Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the Euphrates"?
Don't be silly.[/quote]
[quote]Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of David"
by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th century?
Who says that apart from Bible bangers?[/quote]
[quote]Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
You seem to be implying that, if there were prayer house two or three[/quote]
times as big as a normal house of the time, the Bible story is true. As
I do not consider you stupid, I can only assume sophistry.
[quote]Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
"magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
Do you mean the only sites anywhere?[/quote]
[quote]If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
Do the sites of Hazor, Megiddo, Dan, Arad, Beersheba, Samaria, and
Shechem count as "monumental"?
All of those need to be defined before you can presume agreement with me.
[/quote]
Pass.
--
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 |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Tom P wrote:
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know what
that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify, please
reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three questions
before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th and
and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
[/quote]
It is so obvious he agrees there was no biblical Israel as clarified
by Weland it is pathetic. He keeps trying to claim something he can imagine
might have been called Israel in a vaguely described geographical area just
to try to make his undefined point.
He really should thank Weland for defining biblical Israel beyond
the limits of reasonable misunderstanding. Of course Weland is trying to
kick his own ass for trying to salvage the nonsense so thoroughly.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Mon Oct 26 03:52:26 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Giwer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
SolomonW wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:34:05 -0400, Matt Giwer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, SolomonW wrote:
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.
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.
Checkout circular logic because that is your mistake here.
[/quote]
Science remains science and there in no intrinsic difference between the
bible, astrology and alchemy when it comes to describing this reality.
--
Religion puts food on the tables of priests. This
is the sole purpose of religion.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4186
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Tue Oct 27 02:56:04 EDT 2009 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Tom P wrote:
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.
You posted it just to waste bandwidth?
Never posted such a claim. Thus your point is moot and merely Giwerian
Gobbledygook. Thus irrelevant.
Thanks to Weland we are now all on the same page.
There was no biblical United Kingdom of David and Solomon and you
did not intend to imply there was any physical evidence for its
existence as
decribed in the bible.
Finally we are in agreement.
Thank you for your time.
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me.
You do know what the united kingdom of David and Solomon means, no?
So now you know what is meant. That united kingdom never existed.
Thank Weland for clarifying the matter.
You forgot to follow directions again, Giwer. Try again.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Martin Edwards wrote:
[quote]Tom P wrote:
You see, Giwer, your adjective "biblical" confuses me. I don't know
what that means. And your use of it poisons the well. To clarify,
please reply "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" to the following three
questions before you accuse me of agreeing with you.
Was there a kingdom in the Judean Hill Country during the later 10th
and and early 9th centuries ruled by men named David and Solomon?
How would anyone know? Answers only from outside the Bible please
I always answer from "outside the Bible."[/quote]
By applying archaeological and historical methods such as mentions in
monumental inscriptions, surviving written records, archaeological site
surveys, settlement patterns, the presence of potsherds and ostraca,
mentions in later literary manuscripts, but surely you know that.
[quote]Was the extent of this kingdom as you wrote from "Egypt to the
Euphrates"?
Don't be silly.
I asked a question. I did not make an assertion.[/quote]
[quote]Was there a "magnificent" and "monumental" temple in the "City of
David" by which I mean the archaeological "City of David" of the 10th
century?
Who says that apart from Bible bangers?
Who says what? I asked a question. I did not make an assertion.[/quote]
[quote]Then there are these semantic issues. How do you define "magnificent"
and "monumental" in a 10th century BCE context?
You seem to be implying that, if there were prayer house two or three
times as big as a normal house of the time, the Bible story is true. As
I do not consider you stupid, I can only assume sophistry.
I made no mention of an "Bible story." I merely asked for working[/quote]
definitions of two adjectives Giwer likes to toss around.
[quote]Are Egyptian Thebes and the pyramids the only expression of
"magnificent" and "monumental" during the 10th century BCE?
Do you mean the only sites anywhere?
Yes.[/quote]
[quote]If not, name some other comparable sites, can you?
Can you name any site from the 10th century BCE or earlier that compares[/quote]
to Egyptian Thebes.
Giwer could not, you might have noticed.
[quote]Do the sites of Hazor, Megiddo, Dan, Arad, Beersheba, Samaria, and
Shechem count as "monumental"?
All of those need to be defined before you can presume agreement with me.
Pass.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kendall K Down... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <4ad7b368$0$5664$9a6e19ea at (no spam) unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43 at (no spam) tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]A "Centrist" at the Center of Controversy
BAR Interviews Israel Finkelstein
[/quote]
Brilliant. So Matt the Pratt reproduces an interview which shows that
his hero, Finkelstein, does not agree with his nutty views.
Finkelstein accepts the Tel Dan Stele, believes that there was a David
and a Solomon, boasts of being a "Biblical archaeologist".
So where does that leave Matt the Pratt?
Out on a limb (as usual) and with no visible means of support.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kendall K Down... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <iTTBm.5271$XR1.648 at (no spam) newsfe26.ams2>
SolomonW <SolomonW at (no spam) nospamMail.com> wrote:
[quote]How does this help your case Matt as Israel Finkelstein believes that King
David and Solomon existed?
[/quote]
Hey, come on, SolomonW! You can't expect Matt the Pratt to have
actually *read* it, can you? There's no pictures, no speech bubbles;
it's *way* over the Pratt's head. He just saw the name "Finkelstein"
and posted it without reading it.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kendall K Down... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910161532410.21169 at (no spam) dawn.a.b.c>
"Matthias M. Giwer" <matt at (no spam) localhost> wrote:
[quote]Meaning you are going to insist what is written as a single word
BYTDWD is really two words for no reason other than your faith in Yahweh.
[/quote]
No, our faith in Israel Finkelstein.
Incidentally, "Mattias". That's a Jewish name. You wouldn't be an
anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying Jew, would you?
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
======================================================== |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:05 am
|
|