IamJoseph

The objections to the Tel Dan is hardly vested in a translation that the word David means the beloved - thereby it does not refer to David! It ignores numerous other data culled from this find - which all allign with only one conclusion with no other alternatives. It makes a mockery of all the impacting factors surrounding this find and zooms into a crevice which can be manipulated and debated in cyclical mode forever. It sounds there is an obsessive, existential issue to disprove that which may prove itself and not welcomed.

IamJoseph

Ex Nihilo - YES.

There was once no universe or pineapples.

Then there was.

Here, only WHO-DONE-IT applies.

:wave:

Toto

The objection given here:What other data do you refer to?

IamJoseph

Is it really that simple - enigmatic mystery solved?

Language, as opposed communication, is perhaps the most mysterious and powerful phenomenon in the known universe. It did not/could not have emerged from coos, grunts and hisses - there's much too much at stake here. Why we cannot name a NAME pre-6000. Writings is not a derivitive of speech - speech is a derivitive of a new mode of memory and interaction not seen elsewhere, and limited to the ratio of 1:all life forms. It defies the random jitterbugging particles banging heads together. There are not trillions of communication modes, but only two: speech - and trillions of other forms of communication.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with a magic soft bone in the throat or the brain - else it would be commonplace millions of years ago. Other life forms are not stupid and know a good thing ['ADAPTATION', remember?]. Parents and teachers do not make a child speak language - they merely click on a switch already established within - else each speech human would need millions of years of teaching. Sudden genes transference - you think?!

Consider that a child can become an Einstein in 20 years - and all that knowledge, spanning eons of years and energy - assumed as stored in genes - is irrelevent. Here, it is the mechanism and engineering works in the 'seed' which factors: without that mechanism, all the data in the genes may fall upon a stone on a mountain - and nothing happens - no critical reciprocity. The seed, for want of a better term, has the obvious job of recieving a totally NEW transferable data, know what it is, store it, and make some sense out of it - otherwise genes are rendered irrelevent: a critical point.

Language cannot possibly be limited to genes transference. Better, is Genesis' premise the 'seed' does all the real work - obviously containing a specific NEW directive and Interactive program of a NEW phenomenon; whereas whatever is deemed transfered via genes - was and is always hovering for billions of years - with no result. This does not negate the premise of data transfer via the genes - but puts it in some persepctive as opposed a free floating one without a directive program which can recieve it - else it is rendered irrelevent. I see speech as derived from a NEW external impacting on the genes - as opposed to transfered data within it from millions of years - making it varied from all else surrounding it in the past environment.

ANALOGY: what's a pc worth in the hands of a pineapple - the latter was always there? But if that pineapple can suddenly operate your PC - does it mean this was derived from millions of years of processing - or that it occured suddenly - the pineapple recognised the PC which never existed millions of years ago - and none of the other fruits did? Conclusion: speech is not a graduation of millions of years of elevationary processes. Its totally and uniquely NEW and RECENT.

IamJoseph

My question: is he talking about Tasmania or Madagaskar? I believe the Tel Dan find occured in a suspiciously specific and critical area - and this defies any co-incidence factors contrived by the author. And the bits and pieces fit only one construct in the jig saw.

Sorry, even allowing for all the imaginative removing of every connection with another - the arrow still points to one conclusion: a battle reporting which occured not far from the space time of the House of King David. And there's a host of other finds which attests to this. David reigned in what is today called Palestine - and Assyria looms large only in this construct! What's the point here - that David was a myth?! :wave:

spamandham

Texts are not the same as hard evidence. Even today, crap texts exist that only an idiot would accept, like the National Enquirer. The National Enquirer is of higher quality than a hell of a lot of ancient texts.

No it isn't.

Of course it does. It means that Josephus is an unreliable propogandist rather than a modern journalist - just what is expected considering the culture.

Texts are not the same as hard evidence. Even today, crap texts exist that only an idiot would accept, like the National Enquirer. The National Enquirer is of higher quality than a hell of a lot of ancient texts.

No it isn't.

I can only assume you have not actually read the works of Josephus, as he *explicitly* refers to flying chariots over Jerusalem.

The idea of a Roman war with Judea is supported by hard evidence, and is reasonable to begin with. The idea that there were flying chariots over Jerusalem is patently absurd and not supported by any hard evidnece.

In your ordinary life, are you as gullible as you are when it comes to ancient texts, or - hopefully- do you have a modicum of ability to discern reality from bullshit? :huh:

spamandham

You are treating the Bible (your papyrus god) as infallible, not because it has been proven as such, but because you idolize it.

"Though shalt have no other god before me"

Doh! How can we know that command is from god without first treating it as an extension of that god!??

IamJoseph

Whoah! Our most identifiable evidence is writings. The problem only occurs when the writings is not an original item but a copy of a later time, purported to represent the original. This is the big difference between the Gospels and the dead sea scrolls. I understand that even the stone ethchings on pyramids may not be authentic and subject to doctoring by the egyptians themselves. However, when a writings exhibits marks and details of its contemporary times - it is often more powerful than C14 or anything else.

For example, this is as authentic and historical as it ever gets, and please feel welcome to put something else as a more dependable alternative from anywhere you like. This stone reads almost like the book of kings in certain passages, which is again an independent writing:

IamJoseph

I'd be more impressed if you negated something with some hard evidence instead of assuming my lacking.

Irrelevent. That God has no descriptive marks to consider any extensions with anything else, and declares to be unlike anything within the universe. This is a generic and abstract premise, and it's monotheistic premise is not debatable or subject to any alternatives. Even academically, via science or math - there is no alternative to it - whichever way one goes. Here, even if one renders a big bang particle their deity - they arrive at ONE.

The command you refer to is a valid advocation and not biased or in difference to anyone else. Its as good as it gets. Humanity would have been better off if christianity and islam accepted this advocation - as opposed demanding a preferred name attached to the premise of a Creator - and woe unto anyone who does not agree. We'd have a generic premise of the Creator - equavalent laws and justice for all. Now we have 3.2 B humans quagmired in abject chaos. I would'nt knock that law!

Lugubert

spin, you have adequately and repeatedly demonstrated that IamJoseph, who freely comments on the Hebrew language, doesn't know the first thing of Hebrew writing or grammar. Yet you overlooked this gem:
Not two words, IamJoseph. That's the one word anoki (to choose one transcription), meaning "I".