RED DAVE

From spin:
Larsguy47's tactic is to thank anyone who posts concrete evidence, and then, a post or two later, write as if the information had never been provided.

He did this, for example, with his nonsense about Socrates and Aristotle being lovers, even asserting that he had a secret source for this assertion.

All this led to his paranoid assertion that he was a 6'4" Black transvestite who is also the Messiah.

RED DAVE

Sauron

I can't believe our resident Jews let this one slide by..........:Cheeky:

RED DAVE

From Sauron:
We are accustomed to such abuse. We accept such things stoically.

We will get you for this.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

I look up the links when things are provided! What you call "concrete" evidence is just your view. Case in point, in the Evolution vs Creation thread, I had focus on just how fossils were being dated via radiometric dating. That was my focus because of my position that dinosaur bones shouldn't be more than 27,000 years old. As soon as I started looking up information about dating fossils I find this article by some pro-Creation group that found some nonfossilized materials right next to some text fossiles associated with certain dates. They used RC14 to date this piece of wood and found it to be only a few thousand years old or something. Now whether that was a legitimate reference or not, the evolutionists immediately claimed foul play and said not to believe this and that the people were lying, etc. Yet these same ones would say I was ignoring "concrete evidence" that proves the dating. So it's just an saying people use without proof to dismiss someone else. I'm used to that debate scam. I've been in debates with people who come back later when challenged and say something like: "Ah! We discussed this with you last year and so-and-so disproved you so badly you were completely dismissed. So NOW I'm not discussing this with you at all, I don't have time!" So they get out of a confrontation and they didn't win the argument at all, just proposed an opposing view.

But you can tell the people who are pushing past the evidence because the say things like "concrete evidence" instead of just "the evidence" which allows the evidence to speak for itself.

But in a lot of my arguments, there is no evidence of dismissal. For instance, my claim that some archaeologists date the fall of Jericho by the the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE. That's either true or not. I gave the reference. It's true. No debate. Or I claim that there is an extra-Biblical reference by Manetho or by the recorder of Manetho as to when Joseph came into Egypt. That's either true or not. If I provide the reference, then there's no debate. You can't then say, "There is concrete evidence" that nobody ever "suggested" via any reference, direct or indirect, that Akhenaten began his rule the same year as the Exodus.


I told you specifically that I had no real personal need for them to be lovers, it was just something I came across in a source, was surprised about it, and when comparing their ages based upon the redating of the PPW based upon a better eclipse match to 402BCE rather than 431 BCE that Socrates' historical lover, "Phaedo" would have been about the same age as Aristotle. I don't know if that reference is true or not, but Aristotle does quote from Socrates and mentions him over 80 times in various works of his. It doesn't prove he knew him, of course, but it is more consistent with him might having known him versus Aristotle only mentioning Socrates a couple of times in passing, or adamantly disgreeing with his writings, etc.


Only in heels. And it's obvious I was chosen as the second coming messiah to scare off the Nazis. I think it's working.

LG47

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This is all based on the idea that Exodus occurred on the Sinai Peninsula, a theory that is a bit 'under a cloud'. Many folks looking at the Exodus today are far more interested in the Aqaba crossing, going into Arabia.

Galatians 4:5
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,
and answereth to Jerusalem which now is,
and is in bondage with her children.

It is pretty obvious that if you look in the wrong place for something,
you will not find it. Surprise at this is a bit strained and for those who know the historical search feigned.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

And you simply did not respond to the point made above. The discussion was about events in the Bible that one strong external confirming evidence.

Zap .. then they are accepted as historical.

Yet if that one confirming evidence had not been written, or had been destroyed, or had not yet been recovered, we know the tone of the skeptics would be exactly as above, or far worse. They would scoff at the historicity of a Bible account.

Look eg at spin on Lysanias with his yeoman attempts to reduce the evidences that do exist .. why .. so that he can attempt to fall back to the same type of accusatory and mocking tone above. (Combined along with his trickery nonsense of trying to exclude the historicity of Acts in discussing Luke's overall historicity.)

In fact I had some notes on rebuffed scoffing of skeptics, the cases where they made such arguments and then when they were shown to be wrong they quietly shifted the negative mocking tone elsewhere. Now I realize that there probably are a couple of cases where the claim is made wrongly (e.g the historicity of Pilate) and these will get post after post on IIDB. There is no problem with that, a mistake like that should be exposed, however there are a number of cases where it looks clear that the skeptic and anti-Bible scoffing false accusation against Bible historicity did occur in the manner above.

The skeptics scoff, the new evidence refutes their harumph, and they never really consider the implications of this history for their current accusations. They fall into the Santayana trap.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Larsguy47

You have "faith" it didn't happened because there were not lots of gold necklaces and bracelets dropped everyplace that should have been.


And you don't know it didn't happened, do you?


I don't know. Are you talking about the psychology session or the hot oil massage?

So. They did live in SAMARIA. I was born in California so I guess I'm a "Californian", but I'm also Jewish, so.... what's the point?

That's your unprovable opinion. I believe everyone is entitled to five unprovable opinions. This makes three; you have two to go.

Well, my comment on that would only be to consider the nature of most of our historical references. That is, usually they all come to us through some war stele or conflict. Think about it. Mereneptah, Shishak, Shalmaneser, Tel dan Stele, Moabite stone? All WAR or conflict-related texts! Based upon that, times of great peace would not expect to be as well represented and the time of Solomon was said to be a great time of peace. So what can archaeologists reasonably expect in the same regard? Shishak erected a stele at Megiddo when he conquered that city! That gives us evidence that he conquered it. He didn't conquer Jerusalem, so why would he erect a stele saying that? Does that mean Jerusalem didn't exist?

In the meantime appropriate corroborating evidence of Solomon in particular is found where the Bible specifically says that he had building projects, which is at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor. They found nearly identical 4-chambered gates in all there places. They also found enough palaces to conclude that there had to be a centralized and wealthy government at the time to commission such buildings. So what we do have, archaeology wise, does support specifically what the Bible says about Solomon and his buildings.

Problem with archaeologists, besides not having a really strong grasp on the precise chronology and particularly Biblical chronology, is that they expect too much. Just because Solomon was a great king during a time of peace, they expect to have even more war steles than normal, when in fact, there should be little of none, just the opposite.

That's because you don't understand the reference. I don't need to make any "connection" for Akhenaten, it's automatically made by the reference itself. Case in point (are you writing this down this time?!!), the moment Kenyon assigned the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE, which is 40 year after the Exodus, it automatically associates any king ruling in that period 40 years earlier between 1390-1365BCE with the Exodus. And who were the kings ruling during this time per the conventional chronology? Rameses II? Thuthmosis III? No. Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. Get the CONNECTION?

Same with the reference by Syncellus in connection with Manetho where he claims Josephus was appointed vizier in the 17th of Apophis. I don't have to make the "connection" to Akhenaten because the connection is automatic since if Joseph was appointed vizier in the 17th of Apophis then Jacob came into Egypt in his 25th year, which is 215 years to the Exodus. 215 years from the 25th of Apophis is the 1st of Akhenaten. So the connection is automatically there. I don't have to do anything. There is no gap here and thus no need for any "connection." Akhenaten automatically comes with these two references.

Reference or quote please? would be nice.

Sorry, but Kenyon and Manetho require that Akhenaten and Amenhotep III are the kings involved with the Exodus. There's no interpretation involved. The Bible's chronology is only incidental based upon the general timeline. So the "other direction" is all your imagination. The reference to Akhenaten and the Exodus is academic and not going anywhere.

2.5 million people living in tents in an area large enough to support them, you mean? There's evidence in the Amarna Letters to Akhenaten that he stopped sending as much gold or troops. The Bible says the Jews stripped the Egyptians of gold and that a large army of chariots chasing the Jews into the Red Sea was destroyed. In the meantime, Akhenaten himself totally disgusted with the false gods of Egypt decides to focus on a new found God and new monotheism. From the time of the Battleof Qaqar, in particular, lots of harmonious references to the Jews and their kings and activities are found in Assyrian records. Jehu and Ahab are mentioned by name!

In the meantime, archaeologists who haven't figured out yet that only some of the people lived in towns or stone houses, that many more still lived in tents, so they figure the population was a lot less than it really was.

Yes, we know that. I'm not dying that. Children ladened down with gold chains sometimes fall down and some of the chains fall to the ground. Because there was so much gold it is not worth picking up so it was just left there. But we all know that snakes like to eat gold and so the snakes must have eaten what was dropped, so the dropped gold is no longer around for archaeologists to confirm this. Haven't you ever hear dof the Golden necklass Adder snake? They are called Gold adders because they keep adding more gold to their bellies.

Yeah, biodegradable refuse.

Yeah, in burial places.

Not if they're neat, they don't. Ever hear of an ASH HEAP?

Not if they didn't want to.

Quote/reference please. My impression is that when someone walks on the beach, even if a million people, that when the waves come the footprints are destroyed. Show me scientific evidence that footprints in the sand are detectable thousands of years later that can identify who walked there. Thank you.


BUILD? How about they put up TENTS to live in, that they then take WITH them when they leave?


So does the city of Seattle. But that's no problem since they simply buried it and then it biodegraded within a couple of days. Bears leave feces in the woods all the time too, but I think if you come upon some you don't presume: "Oh wow! A bear must have been here lately, or possibly 1000 years ago!")

Yes, and I NEED that reference since you are so familiar with this evidence that everybody is supposed to have, right? Where's your reference? Someone gave me a reference about nomads and all it was about was how surprised they were that nomads had actual semi-permanent settlements and thus were not so nomadic after all! Where's the evidence of their travels?

No. The shoe is on the other foot. If YOU make a claim about something, especially presume EVERYBODY has a consensus on it and knows about it, then you should provide the "specific reference" upon which you base that presumption. What do you mean by "nomadic remains"? Are you talking about feces in the desert? Discarded gold pottery dishes? What? Who are these "specialists"? I'd love to read some of their work.

LG47

spin

You're right, but then it's not strange: you omitted what I was responding to.

I can't help it if you want to ignore the evidence about Lysanias, but you should take it up in the thread about Lysanias. You had the opportunity and failed dismally. You can always revisit the thread if you find you have something constructive to add.

What you don't seem to have noticed is that biblical archaeology is a dying pseudo-science. Real archaeology is getting to work and the biblical experiment of the last hundred years is considered a basic failure. In stead of supporting the bible in some sort of modern literalist desired sense, archaeology has further detracted from it. This in no way diminishes the bible as a wonderful collection of religious literature. It simply says that people who cling to it for misguided religious reasons will get no comfort from archaeology and the study of history.


spin

Jet Black

we find fossilized turds that are millions of years old, we find fossilized spider footprints and animal burrows and arrowheads that humans have left behind. In short we find alsorts of stuff, so I'm inclined to agree with you.

spin

A faith decision is not your decision. I don't have faith when making decisions that require evidence. I didn't say here that it didn't happen; I said that when you wrote "we know the Bible is true" you were making a statement of faith. You simply have not done the legwork to allow you to get beyond faith into establishing a claim through evidence.

We are working from evidence and this statement of yours is not related to anything. What I know is that there was an exodus in around 1550 BCE -- the ejection of the Hyksos, who the Egyptians over 1000 years later equated with the Jews who had come back into Egypt from the time of Jeremiah onwards.

You couldn't pay enough for the latter.

Jews were from Judah, not the Israel of the time, Samaria.

You've done it publicly a number of times on this forum. Ask a few other people.

Merneptah talks about Israel, not Judah.

No help. He doesn't talk about anything useful for you.

Back to Israel. Israel is no help if you want to talk about Jews.

Yet another inscription which has nothing to do with Jews. If genuine, it seems to be talking about a temple, BYTDWD.

What has that got to do with Jews. It deals with an unpopular house of Israel.

And not one any help to you.

Then you agree that Solomon is not a historical figure.

Actually a Jerusalem didn't exist in the 10th century. And there was a village there a century later. Look for articles by Margreet Steiner.

There is no evidence that these places have anything to do with Solomon -- and they were six-chambered gates. One of the cities which evinces the same gate structure was good old Philistine Ashdod.

Funny thing is that Jerusalem was almost non-existent at the time. All these palaces in all these cities and Jerusalem a one goat town.

Why don't you get hold of Mazar or Ben-Tor.

They expect that they have some grasp on archaeological chronology, unlike you who seem to be totally clueless in the field of archaeology which is the most important chronological information they need, ie being able to relate objects to periods in history, not necessarily in the fanta-history of the bible.

You believe the story, but it hasn't made it as history. Biblical archaeology has failed to give you a Solomon. He's just a name in a biblical story. The only things he did according to the story were, build a temple and a palace and to not cut a baby in half. Oh, and I forgot the affair with the Queen of Sheba.

Yes, I know, Solomon wasn't a historical figure. You've got the idea.

I'm glad you understand the buzz in your head. History doesn't work like that. History requires that connections can be made through evidence. You have none here.

Taking notes is extra: it's not included in the rental of the couch.

Kenyon is constrained by the fact that Raamses didn't exist at a time prior to Ramses II. You crap on about it being built before Ramses II, but you don't take any notice of the archaeology, which gets to the foundation of things and the name is Ramses II. Worse, much worse is the city of Pithom, which you pretended wasn't there, because it was built much, much, much later, as you were told. Pithom wasn't built for well over 500 years after the time of your fantasy. But you will not deal with that fact.

Yep. None. YOU can take your pick. None of your effort has anything to do with history.

This is an utter joke. Syncellus was writing well over 1000 years after Manetho who was writing 800 years after the reputed times of the exodus. There is no way for you to check Syncellus's data or how he got it or even Manetho's data or how he got it. It could all be garbled tradition for all you know. No wonder you are talking crap.

I bet you know the year that Arthur drew the sword from the stone as well.

Akhenaten had nothing to do with anything if one goes on biblical information. Israel was in Egypt for 430 years according to Ex 12:40, so I don't know out of which hat you're dragging 215 years. The biblical data claims Jacob lived in Egypt for 17 years and Joseph was "vizier" well before Jacob died, so from the time Jacon died Israel remained in Egypt another 413 years.

I don't know. You've shown no signs of looking up any of the ones I've already given you.

You haven't established this as anything more than a fantasy in your brain. Kenyon doesn't support your claims whatsoever. Please supply her words to justify your apparent misuse of her name (or at least give a specific reference to her book on Jericho, which I've got somewhere).

Manetho is more of your imagination. You're not working with meaningful data. You seem to have changed information to suit your desires.

I must admit there is little interpretation of your sources in your work. You don't seem to have read the sources.

If you knew anything at all about what is academic, you'd know that you are simply concocting a mulligan stew.

The density of living implied by millions living around a tiny spring requires necessary remains.

You are hardly making any sense. What good is gold which you have them carting around the desert for forty years? You are in la-la-land.

Nothing more and nothing less than fantasy and very banal fantasy at that.

They weren't Jews. They were Israelites. We know about the Samarian kingdom. They are attested down to the time that they disappeared and Judah rose to fill the vacuum. The Jews, ie the Judahites, weren't mentioned in history until late in the Assyrian offensive against Israel.

Get back to us when you've done Archaeology 101.

Please do Archaeology 101 and then perhaps you wouldn't post this rot.

No, not all refuse is biodegradable, but then you haven't done Archaeology 101, so you wouldn't know about the goodies found in refuse dumps. Why do you consistently talk through your hat. You would be ashamed of yourself if you knew a bit more.

And lots of burial places have been dug up from several thousands of years ago. Oh please, do do Archaeology 101 before posting any more fluent ignorance.

Ever opened an archaeology book?

You mean they were going to think about not leaving you any evidence, while fire places are well known from antiquity?

A quick example is the work done by Joseph Patrich around Qumran when he surveyed the area for signs of permanent tent dwelling. If you really and truly want I can supply you with a few exact references. I have the books at home. But you are just as likely to say thanks and ever so conveniently forget all about it, because it is fact and fact is not part of your world construct.

Oh please, folksy poor analogies won't get you anywhere. Do do Archaeology 101 and stop showing so much ignorance. I mean this is appalling. You don't know anything about what you are trying to talk about and you stumble around like a hobbled bull in a china shop. You are making a spectacle of yourself.

Water has nothing to do with the issue. Sand has little to do with the issue either. The area is not a sandy desert. It's a rocky one. In situation where permanent dwellers set up camps they clear tracks for ease of thoroughfare. They flatten the areas for their tents removing stones and they have fires in defined places. Do that for 38 years. Light fires in the same place. Keep tracks cleared. Sleep in the same places. You leave traces, which can be perceived thousands of years later.

Retaining walls were often built. Stone rings for fires. Corrals for animals. Please think just that little bit harder.

Please think just a little before you post such silliness.

Can you look up the word coprolite in the dictionary. Coprolites are good for analysing diets of their depositers.

What about in the desert? Do think of context when you try to give an analogy.

Actually, I read a hell of a lot of books and when I have to deal with harebrained ideas which range from this load of bs of yours to people who want to misinterpretations of Genesis 1 to number twiddling with Daniel to games trying to reconcile the gospel birth narratives to claims of Aramaic primacy over Greek to a bunch of other weird and wonderful things, I don't get to remember everything. You can get quotes when I've got them, otherwise I point you in the right direction. Ask an archaeologist about evidence of nomadic dwellings.

Get in touch with someone who makes a living out of archaeology


Just start with a standard archaeology book for instance on Israel and read about the Negeb. That'll do as a start.

Signs of long term tent living. Signs of walls that could be used for the protection of tents or corralling of animals. Waste heaps. There are lots of remains.

I've already mentioned this above.

Google: "surface archaeology" nomadic

Then take my last suggestion.


spin