 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » What if there really were evidence for Biblical... |
|
Page 42 of 46 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weland... |
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-07, JTEM <jtem01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2796/israelpg0.jpg
You forgot to indicate which "signs" you are counting to reach your total
of seven.
I didn't forget, but you're right in that I should have made it
clear...
You read them from right to left, in this case, and the top signs
before the bottom signs.
So far, we agree.
The first two signs (they're reeds)
should be read as one,
and their meaning or function is what?
as should those two little lines by
themselves, immediately to the left of the first reed signs.
and what do they signify?
You
stop at the second mouth sign (they're the signs which look
a little like eyes).
I see flying saucers or lenses, but never mind. Why stop there? What
about the remaining symbols conventionally considered to be part of the
word? What do they signify?
If you don't do that, it can only be concluded that you
can't do it.
This is idiotic.
How? Does your silence on what the inscription /does/ say suggest
anything other than your not having any suggestions - not even as wild as
the 'make a story out of the pictures' approach I demonstrated?
Again, assume I don't know any languages, including English.
It does not nor can not change the fact that absolutely everything
I have stated on this subject is an objective fact.
Do you read what you write? If we assume that you don't know any
languages then we have to assume that you're just hitting buttons at
random.
#1
It's doesn't say "Israel." In fact, the dime store "Hieroglyphic
dictionary" interpretation is a better phonetic match to "Assyria"
than "Israel," yet nobody is arguing such a thing.
Why do you suppose that might be? How do you get the sound of the first
vowel in 'Assyria' out of the symbols?
#2
The name "Israel" is merely interpreted, not "read" and not
even "translated." The ancient Egyptians couldn't have
written "Israel" even if they wanted to, as they had no 'L'.
They wrote their own name for the people; something like 'Ysryr' or
'Ysraer'. Just as you might write 'Germany' to mean 'Deutschland' (but
the Egyptian name for the Israelites was a lot closer to the Israelites'
own name for themselves than the English and German names for Germany
are).
#3
There is no legitimate reason for interpreting the word as
"Israel."
Except that that reading seems to fit the symbols and the context within
the inscription. A sure-fire way of making that reading look less
'legitimate' would be to produce a reading that fits the context and the
symbols at least as closely.
There isn't any reason at all that isn't predicated
on there being an historical Israel. This is circular, as the
stele is touted as "Evidence" or even "Proof" of an
historical Israel.
Those two sentences constitute a circular argument. You are saying 'there
was nothing called Ysryr so the inscription can't mention it'.
I'll give you an example of an equally as circular argument:
A: We know he's the murder because it's his gun!
B: But what makes you believe that it's his gun?
A: It has to be his, because it belonged to the murderer!
The "Big Picture" here, the only thing anybody needs to
know is #3. Unless & until someone actually comes up
with a legitimate reason for interpreting the word as
"Israel," there is simple no reason -- no excuse -- for
entertaining such a notion.
Good luck with that.
Given that the best scholars of Egyptian inscriptions seem to be more or
less unanimous in accepting that the inscription does mention 'Ysryr' you
should really be debating with them, not a newsgroup; but the first thing
they'll want to know is the same as we're asking you: if it isn't about
'Ysryr' then what is it about, and how do you get to that reading? If you
can't tell us that, how are you going to convince anyone who is an
acknowledged expert in the field?
If you don't think 'Ysryr' has anythng to do with Israelites, that's a
different matter - and you wouldn't be alone in that opinion, even in
'respectable' circles. That gets you out of having to find another
reading of the inscription - but it now presents you with the problem of
identifying what 'Ysryr' does mean, if not 'the Israelites'.
[/quote]
All good points, Whiskers, raised often with our JTard....never
answered. I predict that you too will soon be treated to JTard's usual
invective. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't matter if we're talking Egyptologist, Dinosaur
Paleontologists, Astrophysicists or dog catchers, the rules
of evidence apply. If they haven't legitimate reasons for
making an interpretation than the interpretation is shit.
[/quote]
We know! And we wish you'd begin to even pretend to follow the rules of
evidence..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]In other words you made a baseless claim and
[/quote]
enough already. If you're fooling anybody at all then they
want to be fooled.
The topic is supposed to be the Merneptah stele. But you
couldn't defend your position so you tried to change the
topic to "Credentials." And that was fine, until I gave you
exactly what you wanted, and called into question the
supposed "Credentials" of an idiot who didn't even know
how many hieroglyphs made up the word... the word he
supposedly transliterated... supposedly transliterated
without even knowing how many hieroglyphs were in the
word...
Apparently when you decided to try and change the topic
to "Credentials" you meant *My* credentials... exclusively.
Did you honestly think you were going to get away with that?
I mean, it never occurred to you that, even if the rest of the
world didn't notice, then surely I would point it out to them,
making it clear?
Now do you want to return to the topic, or do you want to
continue to try and make it about "Credentials," you goddamn
retard who had no clue as to how many hieroglyphs even made
up the word, much less how to transliterate it properly?
If in the unlikely event you want to return to the topic, you can
start by producing the legitimate reasons for interpreting the
word as "Israel" in the first place.
How many people interpret it that way, and who they are, are
entirely irrelevant. As we all know for a fact, if even qualified
people don't have a legitimate reason for something, then that
something is BY DEFINITION illegitimate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]Well, since you've already demonstrated that you
haven't been reading what I've
[/quote]
Stop dodging the issue, already!
You were claiming to have legitimate reasons for interpreting
the Menreptah stele as mentioning Israel, but neither you nor
any English speaking person on this planet has ever articulated
such reasons.
I'm calling your bluff.
There are no legitimate reasons. If there were, you would have
posted them here long, Long, Looooooong ago.
Borrow some manhood and admit your error. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote] You've made a claim that has no basis,
[/quote]
You're a goddamn idiot. No basis? Please. That's
a cry for help on your part...
If there is a basis for interpreting the stele as
mentioning Israel, if there are actual legitimate
reasons, then simply detail them for us. Here. Now.
You know, exactly the way that NOBODY has ever
done in the history of the planet.
Without a "Basis," without a legitimate reason for
interpreting the stele a certain imaginative way, no
human being in their right mind would ever do so.
No human being in their right mind should ever do
so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 2:56 am, Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Stop dodging the issue, already!
I'm not.
[/quote]
Then detail for us the legitimate reasons.
[quote]The reason is based in linguistics,
[/quote]
You're simply rephrasing the claim that there are reasons,
and not actually detailing any reasons.
[quote]that's been explained.
[/quote]
Not even as a sick joke.
[quote]Now go run and play.
[/quote]
Pussy. Who on earth do you think you're fooling? Or is
there someone or something that gives out Boobie Prizes
for defending this nonsense?
Do you get extra points for making yourself out to be such
a petty dick? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
Speaking of which, besides waiting for you to admit your
monumental counting error,
As soon as you admit any one of your egregious howlers
[/quote]
Huh? I admit that you're a (f)Lamer with a JTEM obsession,
someone who follows me from thread to thread, spewing
the most mindless (f)lames and pretending that it makes
you clever.
[quote] we're still waiting for you to
produce a legitimate reason for interpreting the stele as
mentioning "Israel."
You tried once before but failed miserably.
Coming from you,
[/quote]
...instead of a mental disorder that didn't even know how
many hieroglyphs made up the word.
[quote]that means I succeeded grandly.
[/quote]
Ah, delusions of grandeur...
[quote]: No; for the moment let's say none of us know the language.
You clearly don't.
Let's say for a moment, you're right.
[/quote]
Okay, "I'm right."
[quote]At the worst then, I'm ignorant of the language and completely
dependent on the very large number of Egyptologists who say
that it refers to Israel who do know the language.
[/quote]
Not true at all.
First off, you do know (and don't deny it, as you admitted it
a long time ago) that there are many who do dispute the
interpretation. So it really comes down to a choice between
two competing ideas, not an obligation as you pretend.
So, how do you decide between the two camps?
There's numbers, sure, you can "Go with the most popular."
That may be the most academically "Safe" position to take,
but academics really only matter in this case if you're
pursuing a degree in Egyptology -- which our earlier
assumption would preclude.
I suppose you might also argue that going with the largest
number is the socially safest route. And that would,
or at least would LIKELY be true. So there might very well
be social benefits to "Following along with the majority,"
but it in no way, shape or form enhances your likelihood of
adopting the correct answer.
Popular != Correct
It's popularly believed that "Columbus Discovered America,"
for example, or that JFK stole the 1960 election... despite the
fact that you could take Illinois -- plus Hawaii -- and he still
had enough Electoral Votes to beat Nixon... while Nixon, on
the other hand, managed to mysteriously flip California from
Kennedy to Nixon overnight, using absentee ballots.. the
traditional means of stealing elections (because absentee
ballots where traditionally counted last, so you knew how many
votes you needed to stuff in order to win).
Some claim that as many as 70% of Americans were convinced
by the Bush Whitehouse that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Just because one idea is more popular than another doesn't
mean that it's correct.
[quote] So go ahead, attack me some more, continue to claim
I don't know the language: it only throws you into relief
as making claims that you can't back up.
[/quote]
You've got it completely backwards. By default it shouldn't
be interpreted as Israel. By default. Why? Because it
honestly doesn't, and NOBODY is claiming that it does.
Again, what the people you follow so sheeplishly claim is
that it should be INTERPRETED as Israel.
Getting back to the point here: By default, we do not assume
it says Israel. The default assumption is "We don't know," or,
more accurately, "Exactly what it says"... which in turn leads
to arguments over how it should be transliterated... bringing us
full circle to "We don't know."
Anyhow, that;'s the default: "We don't know."
NOBODY is required to offer something other than "We don't
know" in order to displace the "Israel" interpretation. It doesn't
work that way. We don't have to choose. We are not required
to settle on one of the available answers in circulation. The
burden is on them, the people circulating those answers. They
have to come up with something that is not only plausible, but
scientifically sound -- legitimate. Nobody has done that for the
"Israel" interpretation, not ever. What anyone has done for the
other explanations is irrelevant, as rejection of all of them is a
valid option.
[quote]So please, let me insist in fact that you continue to make
this claim so I can repeat this point ad inifinitum and have
your words to quote every time.
[/quote]
Which, by the way, is yet another fallacious argument.
You honestly think these are simply insults? You really think
that I invented the whole concept of "Rules" of debate? That,
it's some kind of conspiracy against you? It's just something
I came up with to ignore your appeals to authority?
There really are legitimate arguments and illegitimate arguments,
and you honestly don't seem to know the difference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
The only thing that matters here, and the only thing that
should matter to you is if there is a legitimate reasons
behind any claim.
And you've provided none for yours,
[/quote]
Huh?!?!
That doesn't make any sense. You want me to prove a negative?
That's what you're asking -- that I "Prove" that nobody has
offered any legitimate reasons for the interpretation. That's
asking me to "Prove a negative."
What am I supposed to do, repost every article ever posted
here and to related groups, demonstrating that nobody has
ever produced legitimate reasons? That makes no sense.
The burden is on you and people like you. YOU claim that there
are legitimate reasons, so you are burdened with proving the
claim -- articulating those so-called legitimate reasons.
Seriously, this is news to you? Really? Sheesh! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Forgiven? For claiming that everyone is wrong but
not being able to provide a single valid reason that
that is the case?
Speaking of which, besides waiting for you to admit your
monumental counting error,
[/quote]
As soon as you admit any one of your egregious howlers and apologize for
it. The clock has been ticking on that one a long, long time.
we're still waiting for you to
[quote]produce a legitimate reason for interpreting the stele as
mentioning "Israel."
You tried once before but failed miserably.
[/quote]
Coming from you, that means I succeeded grandly.
Just for kicks
[quote]though, lets look at your pathetic attempt...
: No; for the moment let's say none of us know the language.
You clearly don't.
[/quote]
Let's say for a moment, you're right. At the worst then, I'm ignorant
of the language and completely dependent on the very large number of
Egyptologists who say that it refers to Israel who do know the language.
By contrast this means that you who does not know the language
nonetheless is declaring that the conclusions of Egyptologists are all
wrong and you have absolutely no basis to do so. So go ahead, attack me
some more, continue to claim I don't know the language: it only throws
you into relief as making claims that you can't back up. So please, let
me insist in fact that you continue to make this claim so I can repeat
this point ad inifinitum and have your words to quote every time.
After all, you had no idea how many
[quote]hieroglyphs even made up the word in question!
[/quote]
But I do have an idea how many have important phonological value. But
this isn't about me, and it shouldn't be about you. It is about what
the stele says. Since you are bucking the communis opinio of those who
actually know the language and the script and linguistics, it's up to
you to provide some evidence for your claims. You have failed to do so.
[quote]
: That means we are dependent on the Egyptologists.
Not really, no. Besides being a common fallacious argument
(argument from/by authority),
[/quote]
Yes, really, yes. If you want to read ancient Egyptian you either have
to learn the language (you haven't) or you have to find someone who can.
Further, what I wrote isn't fallacious. The appeal to authority is
fallacious if a) the authority isn't an authority or b) the authority's
expertise is treated as absolute. Egyptologists don't fit a). Their
expertise was not treated as absolute. Had you continued reading you
would have noted that I avoided any such understanding by stating: "That
doesn't make it fact...". Since you're slow, that's an explicit
statement that the authority and expertise, while to be respected, isn't
absolute.
Your avenues to disagree are:
1) show that the name on the stele is really something else or means
something else. You either need to know the language and script or
depend on someone who does.
2) show that the current reading is motivated by greed, self-interest,
is made under duress, or that for over a century, modern scholarship has
been deceptive on what the stele says. You tried a version of this some
time ago, but failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.
it's not technically accurate. We
[quote]have many tools at our disposal, not the least of which are
logic or even common sense.
[/quote]
Indeed, but if you want to read what the stele says, then you need to
know the language and script. You claim the currently accepted reading
is wrong. So provide evidence from within the language and script.
[quote]The rules of evidence, for example, are recreated anew every
day, and neither is a special and unique set applied to
Egyptology alone.
[/quote]
Indeed, so why aren't you following rules of evidence?
[quote]
And the vast majority of them say that the word there on
the stele indicates Israel.
Here you're arguing that reality is decided by way of a
popularity contest.
[/quote]
Here you are trying to throw up more smoke screen. It's the same as
before: modern scholarship by and large accepts that it refers to
Israel. You disagree. But since you don't know the language or script
or linguistics, you can't tell us what it should say. And you have
failed to provide any evidence in any other direction that would lead
one to question the accepted reading. It has nothing to do with
popularity, it does have to do with logic, evidence, and expertise, all
of which you lack.
This is clearly false, even without noting
[quote]the distinct lack of any supporting cites. You know,
something to demonstrate that your claim is not simply
just a claim.
[/quote]
Oh, you mean like you have provided "cites" for your claim that the
reading on the stele is wrong?
[quote]But let's pretend that you actually produced a cite for the
first time in your life, and you weren't simply preaching &
demanding that everybody give you an "Amen"...
Nobody here is disputing the fact that the Merneptah stele
in widely interpreted as "Israel." the challenge here was
to produce a legitimate reason for doing so.
Thus far, all you've offered is circular reasoning (it's legitimate
to interpret it as Israel because people interpret it as Israel),
an argument predicated on itself.
[/quote]
Yeah, except that wasn't my argument. I know you are slow, but do try
harder.
[quote]
So a zillion Egyptologist interpret it as Israel: Why? That is
the question -- not who does so, not how many do it but WHY
they do it.
[/quote]
Have you entertained the idea in your small head that they do so because
knowing the language and the script and having linguistic training, they
know that that is what it refers to?
It's like saying the real issue is why everyone says that Buckingham
Palace is in London, England. The reason why is because that's where it
is. If you wish to prove otherwise, you would have to provide evidence.
[quote]What we don't have here is any legitimate reasons for doing
so, and a Phd in Egyptology or not, that means it's bogus.
[/quote]
Yes we do. That's been explained to you, but you conveniently snipped
it...again.
[quote]
It doesn't matter if we're talking Egyptologist, Dinosaur
Paleontologists, Astrophysicists or dog catchers, the rules
of evidence apply.
[/quote]
So follow them...either present some evidence for your contention or
apologize for wasting our time and sit down. *CLAIMING* that there is
no basis and there being no basis are not the same thing. The basis has
been explained to you. The basis is widely published and Tiglath
pointed you to over 25 places where it has been published. Get thee to
a library! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-07, Weland <giles at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
[...]
Perhaps that line of hieroglyphs really means that a big bird got caught
in the bullrushes and was plucked and cooked and served on a plate and
eaten by a man and a woman with a drink of snakebite as well, and then they
played with their pet canary before going for a walk by the river and a
ride at the fairground before getting bitten by a real snake. But why
anyone would bother to carve all that into a huge monument is far from
obvious.
Well, if you think we haven't yet figured out how to read hieroglyphics,
let me invite you to take a look at the Rosetta Stone and read about the
decipherment of the Egyptian scripts. Your scenario here is frankly
ridiculous.
That was precisely the intention. I'm still mildly curious as to what
JTEM says the inscription means; he clearly doesn't like the standard 'I
bashed Israel' readings but hasn't revealed what his reading is, let alone
how he relates it to the actual inscription. My fantastical offering does
at least account for the big bird and the little bird and the snake and
the man and the woman  )
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
That was precisely the intention. I'm still mildly curious
as to what JTEM says the inscription means;
What difference does it make? Seriously. The question is
entirely irrelevant.
The only thing that matters here, and the only thing that
should matter to you is if there is a legitimate reasons
behind any claim.
[/quote]
And you've provided none for yours, yet we know that the current reading
is supported by linguistics. QED, take the one that is supported by
evidence, reject the nutter who has no evidence.
[quote]
The claim we're debating is that the Merneptah stele can
be interpreted as referencing Israel.
Hold that claim to a great deal lower standard than you
would if I made it, and simply demand a legitimate reason
for the interpretation.
That's it. That's all that matters.
There's no point in pretending that this fact will change if
I don't know any language, or fail to jump through any
hoops. It won't. All the fallacious arguments in the world
can't change reality, and reality is that there are no legitimate
reasons for claiming that it can be interpreted as "Israel."
[/quote]
In short, JTard has no reason to suspect or question the current reading
and he exercises willful ignorance in finding out why the the current
reading exists. By his own standards, a legitimate reason for his
claim, his claim fails. Done. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
In other words you made a baseless claim and
enough already. If you're fooling anybody at all then they
want to be fooled.
[/quote]
There's no fooling here, just you, our Fool, JTard Jester. You've made
a claim that has no basis, you've been unable to provide a basis, so you
resort to mere screaming instead.
[quote]The topic is supposed to be the Merneptah stele. But you
couldn't defend your position so you tried to change the
topic to "Credentials."
[/quote]
Nope. I've never once mentioned credentials. Expertise in reading the
language and script in question, yes, but not credentials.
And that was fine, until I gave you
[quote]exactly what you wanted, and called into question the
supposed "Credentials" of an idiot who didn't even know
how many hieroglyphs made up the word... the word he
supposedly transliterated... supposedly transliterated
without even knowing how many hieroglyphs were in the
word...
[/quote]
Again, that would be attempting to call into question my expertise, not
my credentials. And my expertise isn't the issue since even if I'm as
ignorant as you, and I'm not, I can point to others who do have that
expertise, whereas all you can do is jump up and down and scream at us
that it has no basis even though you don't understand the valid basis
that is there and has been explained to you. Big difference.
[quote]
Apparently when you decided to try and change the topic
to "Credentials" you meant *My* credentials... exclusively.
[/quote]
Again, expertise. And certainly, you're the one after all claiming that
the current readig is wrong; it is up to you to provide proof of that.
The most obvious way is by providing an alternative reading based in the
language and script. You are unable to do that and you've not provided
anyone with the expertise who has published such a position.
[quote]
Did you honestly think you were going to get away with that?
I mean, it never occurred to you that, even if the rest of the
world didn't notice, then surely I would point it out to them,
making it clear?
[/quote]
What? Making it clear as I pointed out, that the more you scream at me,
the more your lack of expertise is illustrated? Oh yes, you've made
that crystal clear, no one doubts that.
[quote]If in the unlikely event you want to return to the topic, you can
start by producing the legitimate reasons for interpreting the
word as "Israel" in the first place.
[/quote]
Already done. Your sad and pathetic attempts to wave your hand airily
and dismiss the entire field of linguistics because you say so didn't
fool anyone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Weland... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi... at (no spam) poetic.com> wrote:
Well, since you've already demonstrated that you
haven't been reading what I've
Stop dodging the issue, already!
[/quote]
I'm not. The reason is based in linguistics, that's been explained.
Now go run and play.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]Because that's the last letter. The rest of the signs consist of a
literal mark and determinatives.
Whose purpose and significance is what? Why do you think
they aren't part of the word?
[/quote]
I already supplied you with three cites explaining the literal mark.
As for the determinatives..
Let's re-type your question without vowels:
[quote]Whs prps nd sgnfcnc s wht? Wh d y thnk
thy rn't prt of th wrd?
[/quote]
Without looking at the original, and taking in the context, it could
be pretty damn difficult to figure out what you mean. Hence,
"Determinatives." These are extra signs which help you decipher
the meaning of a word.
[quote]Most transliterate it as a 'Y', though an "Aj" was the first
real transliteration I ever saw...
Was that perchance a phonetic rendering by someone whose
own language used the letter J to represent a sound which in
English is usually written with a letter Y?
[/quote]
No.
And clearly that wouldn;t explain the 'A'.
The point is that the 'Y' is heavily enforced by nuts who insist
on an overly simplistic phonetic interpretation, the likes of
which would do any dime-store "Hieroglyphic Alphabet" book
proud. It's more complicated than that.
[quote]This is not a legitimate explanation. You're starting with the
conclusion ("it says Israel") and then groping for an explanation
that fits. It's a rationalization.
A real argument begins at square-one and then ARRIVES at the
conclusion, while you begin with the conclusion.
If you believe that the inscription doesn't refer to what in English
would be written as 'Israel', you have to
[/quote]
False. I do not. That's is not only an illegitimate argument, it's a
pathetically bad one.
If you can';t understand this rather basic, inescapable fact, this
isn't a topic for you.
[quote]Except that that reading seems to fit the symbols and the
context within the inscription.
No it doesn't. In fact, it's excessively problematic, spawning
numerous unanswered questions.
Take a list offers phonetic values for hieroglyphs,
[/quote]
The ancient Egyptians NEVER left us with words spelled in
phonetic English. Never. Please get that idea right out of your
mind.
[quote]Now it's your turn to find a resource that backs up whatever
it is /you/ think those characters might be read as.
[/quote]
Again, you're way off base here. Nothing I can say or not say
is capable of altering the fact that there is no legitimate reason
for interpreting the text as "Israel."
[quote]For example, NOBODY is claiming that Merneptah expanded
his kingdom.
In particular, not Merneptah.
This would require this "Israel" to be invaders.
No it wouldn't.
[/quote]
It would, actually.
[quote] Did Iraq and Afghanistan invade the USA during GWB's
presidency?
[/quote]
So you're arguing that this "Israel" flew planes into Merneptah's
buildings, or are you simply projecting early 21st century motives
and values backwards 3 thousand years in time?
[quote]No-one apart from you says they were invaders.
[/quote]
Everyone does, actually. These aren't people Merneptah was
conquering, the belief is that he was fighting off invaders.
Google it yourself. Let's not have a repeat of all the other facts
you refused to Google. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-08, JTEM <jtem01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwheezel at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
You
stop at the second mouth sign (they're the signs which look
a little like eyes).
I see flying saucers or lenses, but never mind. Â Why stop there?
Because that's the last letter. The rest of the signs consist of a
literal mark and determinatives.
[/quote]
Whose purpose and significance is what? Why do you think they aren't part
of the word?
[quote]Note: The total of the signs -- minus literal mark & determinatives
--
is seven.
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]#1
It's doesn't say "Israel." In fact, the dime store "Hieroglyphic
dictionary" interpretation is a better phonetic match to "Assyria"
than "Israel," yet nobody is arguing such a thing.
Why do you suppose that might be?
Nobody is desperate to find a reference to Assyria.
 How do you get the sound of the first
vowel in 'Assyria' out of the symbols?
Most transliterate it as a 'Y', though an "Aj" was the first
real transliteration I ever saw...
[/quote]
Was that perchance a phonetic rendering by someone whose own language used
the letter J to represent a sound which in English is usually written with
a letter Y?
[quote]#2
The name "Israel" is merely interpreted, not "read" and not
even "translated." The ancient Egyptians couldn't have
written "Israel" even if they wanted to, as they had no 'L'.
They wrote their own name for the people; something like 'Ysryr' or
'Ysraer'.
This is not a legitimate explanation. You're starting with the
conclusion ("it says Israel") and then groping for an explanation
that fits. It's a rationalization.
A real argument begins at square-one and then ARRIVES at the
conclusion, while you begin with the conclusion.
[/quote]
If you believe that the inscription doesn't refer to what in English would
be written as 'Israel', you have to come up with an alternative that is at
least equally plausible in the context of the inscription
('determinitives' and all).
[quote]#3
There is no legitimate reason for interpreting the word as
"Israel."
Except that that reading seems to fit the symbols and the
context within the inscription.
No it doesn't. In fact, it's excessively problematic, spawning
numerous unanswered questions.
[/quote]
Take a list offers phonetic values for hieroglyphs, and see what we can
make of it. For example <http://www.greatscott.com/down/hiero_chart.pdf>:
'double reed' = y; long vowel ee
long horizontal line with two small things in the middle = z
two vertical lines = don't know
'mouth' or lense-shape = rolling r
'reed' = i; short vowel as in fill
big bird = long a as in father
'mouth' or lens-shape = r
So there are your seven symbols transliterated phonetically according to
that particular 'educational' web site and we have
yz[something?]riar
Now it's your turn to find a resource that backs up whatever it is /you/
think those characters might be read as. Over to you. The ball is in
your court (where it has been for a long time, now). The game is at a
standstill until you do something with the ball - or leave the game.
Anything else you do is irrelevent; play the game, or quit.
What yz[?]riar (or whatever you think it "says") might refer to is
something else.
[quote]For example, NOBODY is claiming that Merneptah expanded
his kingdom.
[/quote]
In particular, not Merneptah.
[quote]This would require this "Israel" to be invaders.
[/quote]
No it wouldn't. Did Iraq and Afghanistan invade the USA during GWB's
presidency?
[quote]Well,
invaders come from /Somewhere/ and, after they are defeated,
they go /Somewhere/ else....
[/quote]
No-one apart from you says they were invaders. Merneptah certainly
doesn't.
[quote]Yet NOBODY on this planet offers any explanation as to where
these invaders supposedly came from, or where they ran to and
stayed for the next three centuries until we pretend to find the
next reference.
[/quote]
Because no-one supposes they were invaders at all; they aren't claimed to
have "come from" or "gone to" anywhere, according to Merneptah; he claims
that they are no longer a threat to Egypt (with the implication that he is
responsible for making Egypt safer in some way). The conventional reading
has "yz[?]riar" being 'some people who aren't Egyptians' living in Canaan.
That's where Merneptah implies he 'dealt with' them; they didn't come from
or go to anywhere, they stayed where they were according to him.
[quote]A sure-fire way of making that reading look less
'legitimate' would be to produce a reading that
fits the context and the symbols at least as closely.
That's another fallacious argument. The claim that the
Merneptah stele is legitimately interpreted as mentioning
Israel is independent of any alternative claims.
Even if I list a million alternative interpretations, and you
can prove them all wrong, that would in no way require
your position to be right.
[/quote]
Of course not, no-one is claiming that. But the absence of an equally
credible but different interpretation does lend weight to the conventional
one - and you have offered nothing to change that.
[...]
[quote]No. But what I will say is that there are more than one
transliterations -- not just the "Ysryr" (I even posted one
earlier) -- and that there's no legitimate reason to interpret
it as an intention to say "Israel."
The "Big Picture" here, the only thing anybody needs to
know is #3. Unless & until someone actually comes up
with a legitimate reason for interpreting the word as
"Israel," there is simple no reason -- no excuse -- for
entertaining such a notion.
Good luck with that.
Given that the best scholars of Egyptian inscriptions seem
As I've already pointed out numerous times, this is another
fallacious argument.
[/quote]
No it isn't. You don't like it, that's obvious, but you still haven't
offered anything to replace it.
[...]
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:12 am
|
|