lpetrich

leonarde:
The Babylonian Captivity lasted 60 or 70 years (ie 3 to 4 generations); how many certifiably "Babylonian" names are in evidence among Jews today?

There are some, like Mordechai, from the god Marduk (Biblical Merodach).

However, Akkadian was not very distant from Hebrew, though Akkadian is East Semitic and Hebrew is West Semitic.

For some, retaining and perpetuating Egyptian names may have been as repugnant as retaining "slave" names is said to be for American Muslims/Black Muslims (see: Muhammed Ali versus Cassius Clay, Kareen Abdul-Jabbar versus Lew Alcindor etc.).

However, taking Arabic names seems to be common among Muslim converts.

The Jews of the Russian Empire were there for centuries yet (mostly) they retained identifiably Jewish names, even in the face of rampant anti-Semitism (Trotsky's family name was Bronstein, Kamenev's Rosenfeld etc.)

Bronstein, Rosenfeld, and other such stereotypically Jewish names look VERY Teutonic. Which only supports my point.

spin

lpetrich

Here's a little info on names from here, regarding two Jewish families in Mesopotamia.


spin

Angrillori

Well can we take this as a formal admission that no evidence supporting the exodus myth has been found? That you are, at the moment, unable to provide any bit of evidence supporting your claim?

Since there is evidence AGAINST your claim that is available to present, and you have no evidence available to present FOR your argument, then it seems reasonable to me to, at least for the moment, dismiss your claim. Don't you?

Doctor X

It is the only logical conclusion.

--J.D.

Celsus

leonarde,

I challenge you to construct a chronology of the 31 cities said to be destroyed or captured in Joshua and Judges, showing that the majority were destroyed as part of a unified campaign. All you need to do is find a set of destruction layers that fall within 50 years or so for each of the following cities:

Jericho
Ai
Jerusalem
Hebron
Jarmuth
Lachish
Eglon (Tell 'Aitun)
Gezer
Debir (Tell er-Rabud)
Geder (Khirbet Jedur)
Hormah
Arad
Libnah
Adullam (Khirbet 'Adullam)
Makkedah
Bethel
Tappuah (Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad)
Hepher (Tell el-Muhaffer)
Aphek
Lasharon
Madon
Hazor
Shimron-meron
Achsaph (Khirbet el-Harbaj)
Taanach
Megiddo
Kedesh (Tell Abu Qudeis)
Jokneam
Dor
Goiim
Tirzah (Tell el-Farah)

A fairly simple task should you be able to do so. Since Hormah, Libnah, Makkedah, Lasharon, Madon, Shimron-meron, and Goiim have yet to be positively identified, you only need to do it for the other 24 cities, making your job even easier. Enough of this grandstanding and posturing about people "truly interested in archaeology". If you are such a person, cough up some proper evidence, not just "Moses' name was Egyptian" (response: "So what?"). If you are interested, I will take you on in a formal debate come March over the Exodus or Canaanite conquest ("Resolved that there is little evidence for the Canaanite conquest, and plenty of evidence against it ever having occurred"). PM me if you're interested, I will be on holiday till March.

Joel

leonarde

Youses are really too much. Here's a partial repost from page three of my post (ie from 6 pages ago:So: I explicitly state on page 3 (ie my first page of participation on this thread) that "I am not myself claiming that" (a particular fairly significant aspect of the Exodus story) "occurred". My tone continued in that vein through the thread: I merely pointed out absurd and contradictory 'expectations' for a putative-------got that???? putative ---Exodus scenario: among other things a demand for "mass graves" followed by signs of a 'hastily arranged burial' (this from the Egyptians who were obsessed with death/burial and were never unprepared for it in any normal modern sense!).

Then (still page 3 -----6 pages ago!) I make the startling observation in this exchange with Postcard 73:And Postcard 73 agreed with me (on that limited point).

Somehow this has gotten twisted into your own "goat herd" legend (ie stuff youses invented on this very thread):

that I ascerted that the plagues, the Exodus journey itself, the Conquest of Canaan etc. happened exactly as reported in the OT .

Not so. But if you couldn't understand my (rather simple) prose on page 3, you won't understand it on page 9 or page 109....


Cheers!

Doctor X

I gather we can recognize that as the concession it is.

--J.D.

Celsus

leonarde, it is quite clear from the way you defend the lack of evidence that you are trying to foist your own version of events on the Biblical portrait. You defend the Biblical portrait as "compatible" (what the hell does that mean? UFOs creating the Nephilim is "comaptible" with the Bible), but make no case at all for your side. You defended Moses' Egyptian name as a sign that the "embryonic" version of events must be true. You were then challenged to show the significance of Egyptian contact on the Israelites. Your response was equivocation. You were challenged to show that the Biblical account was the best explanation for Egyptian names of Moses et al. Your response was equivocation. Now you're being challenged to show that the so-called conquest happened in a manner "compatible" with the Bible, and again, you are equivocating. That is why I'd like to cut the equivocation and go to a formal debate.

But enough of me, go ahead, give us your version of events, and stop this silly equivocation.

Joel

spin

Umm, sorry, no. This is just an attempt to draw a new defence line: at least I can argue that there is insufficient evidence to totally and utterly rule out the vaguest possibility that the biblical tradition had the glimmer of having happened in some way no matter how muted, I can still personally hold that it must have happened because no-one has totally refuted it. This way one need not deal with the evidence that exists because though it might seem conclusive it is not strong enough to put a dent in the lumpen inertia of received tradition.


spin

Indy

I've followed this fascinating thread for some time. My interests lie in the arguments of clever religionists when they try to use Biblical logic to thwart non-xians. Most don't do a very good job of it, but in the beginning, Leonarde put together some excellent argumentatives--saying things that initially looked like "Ooh, not bad... have to give him a nod for that one. Be hard to rebut that one."

However, rebuttals have consistently come in the form of logic, reason, intellect, information, and research. Virtually every point Leonarde has made has been completely discounted or, at the very least, rendered back into the annals of pseudo-science. I admire Leonarde for his capability to respond in kind, but his responses have gone from reasonably polite and well-intentioned to being reduced to picking on everyone, throwing sideways insults, and refusing to answer questions or attempt to support his points. It seems he is either a flounderer who is brutally losing the battle but hasn't the sense to give in or leave, or someone who plainly enjoys causing strife).

At any rate, we seem stalled on this. Excellent arguments are no longer coming... Leonarde has everyone bickering with him. In the old days before the WWW, we called this a "flame war"; perhaps it still is, who knows.

At the same time, I can't help but be intrigued by the answers we have yet to get from Leonarde. Perhaps a member with better record-keeping than I could summarize the various points, as neatly and simply as possible, put it out to Leonarde, and have him either answer them as logically as he can or simply say "I can't." (Somebody out there must be keeping track of this! I've seen too many elegantly rebutted posts with lots of quoted material. Anyone?)

I have noticed two points, however, I wanted to mention.

First, I have been checking around various baby name books and name history sites, and I keep finding "Moses" as being considered Greek in origin--meaning "drawn out of the water," a fitting Biblical tribute of course. But I don't see any Egyptian or Hebrew history for the name. Does anyone have anything specifically dealing with the origin of the name prior to the Greek version?

Second, Leonarde: in your profile, you claim to be an ultramontanist. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, ©1996 defines ultramontanism as being a term from the Roman Catholic Church, meaning "the policy that absolute authority in the Church should be vested in the pope."

Yet you claimed otherwise during this thread. Unless I am mistaken, I thought you said you were agnostic. Being an ultramontanist seems completely at odds with being agnostic. Are you willing to divulge your faith denomination? I'm curious as I wonder if it might provide any enlightenment to your agnostic/ultramontanistic duality.

That's all from me. Better debaters than I will continue this.