Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-13-2004, 03:00 PM

[mod hat on]

OK, everybody, play nice.

Mr. Smith has unknowlingly stirred up more of a storm than he intended.

EdwardSmith - there are some formatting tools on this board. You can put text into quote boxes, you can highlight text. If you don't mind, I will fix up your earlier posts so I can read them.

Chuck · 05-13-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

The Seha river was either the Gediz river or the Bekir river. 'Seha' contains the same sound component, 'eha' as 'Gihon' and 'Pishon', but is clearly neither of those. That indicates that naming rivers such that they are 2 syllables and include the sound 'eha' is a trait of an anatolian language. That supports the eastern Turkey hypothesis. So far, the evidence weighs significantly for both hypotheses, but in favor of the eastern Turkey hypothesis.

Quote:

The hurrians also occupied a large expanse of the land that was south of Armenia, including that of the town of Havilhanlari. That means that Havila was clearly the land of the hurrians. Also, in the hittite language, the hurrians are called the 'hurlili' which is similar to 'Havila', which confirms that Havila was the land of the hurrians.

Could you provide a couple of references to Anatolian and Hittite morphologies?

Without some significant support from the literature, assertions about such ancient Indo-European etymologies are very difficult to prove. Because two lexemes or morphemes happen to be similar does not mean that the two are necessarily linked.

Toto · 05-13-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdwardSmith

Quote:

"This looks like something written for a high school creative writing class."

-That is a false portrayal of the article, as can be seen by reading it. I request that interested third parties actually read the article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by that deception.

Quote:

"That it can be argued the author of a fable had an actual geographic location in mind when creating the fable in no way establishes or even suggests that the events of the fable actually took place. If I wrote a story about seeing a unicorn on a hill by a creek where a large tree had fallen over but remained alive because the root system was still buried, you would not be justified in concluding the events actually happened if you discovered this description corresponds to the vicinity of my childhood home."

-That falsely assumes that the myth of the mystical fruit trees, the serpent, and Adam and Eve were supported by the article, whereas the article does not do so.

Quote:

"What's the point if a place named Eden existed at some time in the past? Does this change anything in our thinking of the bible or what? Please explain."

-It is a matter of curiosity. It's purpose is to bring clarity to an otherwise hazy part of the ancient past.

Quote:

"What you are doing is presuming that everything in the Bible that isn't supernatural is factual, which is a load of bollocks."

-That falsely portrays statements in the bible that have clear relationships to historical and geographical facts as those that do not. The least credible non-mythical stories are those that demonstrate a moral, by the way. The location of Eden isn't even a story, but a location, except for the minor parts that say 'guarded on the east' and 'arrived from the west' (paraphrased). Also, 'load of bullocks' is a crude forceful statement that serves to distract from the truth by the sheer force of words. It is similar to 'bullsh-t', and I have never met a person that used such crude forceful language that was actually in the right, as such language is used to forcefully distract from honest curiosity.

Quote:

" 'The very first paragraph of the article proves why Eden was a true place, without supporting any of the obvious biblical fallacies regarding Eden.' It does nothing of the sort."

-That is simply a false statement, as can clearly be seen by actually reading the article.

Quote:

"All it does is presume what atheists think, and I'll wager good money that none of the regulars in this forum believe that Eden is some mystical place in another dimension."

-That falsely portrays the beliefs of what Eden is considered to be as the beliefs of what Eden actually is.

That is a rather blatant deception. Does Celsus use these types of deceptions on several people? I see that he has made a large number of posts on the infidels' forum, which suggests that he has a general desire to disrupt the truth. If he tries this kind of stuff just one more time, then I recommend that he be banned from the forum.

Quote:

"Philistines and other Sea People are from Mycenaea, not Anatolia, for a start. Abraham was not the founder of Judaism."

Quote:

"Cush is known as an anachronism"

-Those are all unsupported statements.

Quote:

"when did the Sumerian empire fall? When did Israel rise? hint: round to the nearest 1000"

-The sumerians were conquered near 1900BCE if I remember correctly; they were not eradicated, the latter of which would ensure the eradication of their mythology.

Quote:

"(wherever that is)"

Quote:

"The funniest part"

-Those statements are false portrayal via emotional reaction, clearly indicative as a desire to avoid logic. I request that interested third parties actually read the article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by that deception.

Quote:

"Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, David Rohl, Eric Von Daniken, any of these people sound familiar to you, Ed?"

-That falsely portrays valid name relationships as grossly invalid name relationships. It is also an emotional response which contains the aforementioned false assumption. I request that interested third parties actually read the article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by that deception. (I know that I've said that last sentence many times, but it serves to emphasize it's importance)

All of these deceptions indicate that Celsus has a strong blind bias against the people that he perceives as his enemies or opponents, which is in turn caused by a blind bias toward oneself, namely the dominance drive. That in turn means that everything that Celsus says, in every thread and not just this one, should be regarded with a high degree of scrutiny. He's high-maintenence. It is my guess that Celsus is politically a laizzes-fairist, that is, a person who believes in the chaotic competitive state of an absence of government regulation, as such a state is conducive to dominance. Am I right?

Quote:

"The article uses a large quantity of historical, linguistic, and geographical facts. I didn't note said collection of facts. In fact I did not see a single reference or footnote."

-That is a rather blatant deception that portrays the abscence of fact-numbering or footnotes as the absence of facts. I therefore recommend that the person that made that deception be banned from the infidels forum. It is ridiculous that such deceptive behavior exists on this forum. If a moderate christian were to read such deceptions, they may very well consider fanatical christians to be more rational people than atheists, not realizing that there are in fact many rational atheists such as myself.

I will be sure to report all of the aforementioned underhanded deceptions to the moderator. I will try to ignore the deceptions that will inevitably follow in the replies to this reply. All I can say to third parties is this: Read the original article and all of my posts and judge them and everything else for yourself, and be cautious of deceptions by all individuals, including myself, though I have made no deceptions.

Edward Smith: See how much easier it is to follow that with a little formatting?

People here get emotional because that adds interest to their lives, not necessarily to be deceptive. Please just ignore the emotionalism and concentrate on the challenges to your factual assertions.

Amaleq13 · 05-13-2004, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdwardSmith

This article can therefore serve as the atheists'
theory of Eden.

Exactly what purpose would you suggest this "theory" serves for atheists?

As you have already stated, it really says nothing about the biblical fable so how is it helpful to atheists?

spin · 05-13-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Fristians

Without some significant support from the literature, assertions about such ancient Indo-European etymologies are very difficult to prove. Because two lexemes or morphemes happen to be similar does not mean that the two are necessarily linked.

I would think that Edward Smith's linguistic claims can be discounted.

Look at this:

Quote:

The Seha river was either the Gediz river or the Bekir river. 'Seha' contains the same sound component, 'eha' as 'Gihon' and 'Pishon', but is clearly neither of those. That indicates that naming rivers such that they are 2 syllables and include the sound 'eha' is a trait of an anatolian language. That supports the eastern Turkey hypothesis. So far, the evidence weighs significantly for both hypotheses, but in favor of the eastern Turkey hypothesis.

This is an appalling phonological argument. What's the similarity between Seha and Gihon? An "h". Gihon in Hebrew is GHWN and one should note that the WAW tells us that it is an important vowel. What's the relation between the WAW and the "a" in Seha? None. Things are worse with Pishon: there isn't even an "h", written PY$WN. There is in fact nothing in common. Appalling.

Now what about this beauty?

Quote:

The hurrians also occupied a large expanse of the land that was south of Armenia, including that of the town of Havilhanlari. That means that Havila was clearly the land of the hurrians. Also, in the hittite language, the hurrians are called the 'hurlili' which is similar to 'Havila', which confirms that Havila was the land of the hurrians.

With Havilhanlari we clearly have a turkish noun (plural). Why are we looking at it for a relationship with the Hurrian "hurlili"? or is it that we should be looking for the Hebrew XWYLH, which just so happens to be rendered into English as Havilah? The Chet at the beginning of Havilah is a different phoneme from an "h", but if someone is only working from the English forms they wouldn't know that.

I am sick to death of people who know nothing about diachronic or comparative linguistics making butterfly leaps from one language to another to reach profound conclusions. Please, everybody, if you see such a beast coming (arguments based on liguistic appearances of single words without context, without parallels supplied), avoid it like the plague. It is almost guaranteed to be a baseless monstrosity.

spin

Celsus · 05-13-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdwardSmith

That falsely portrays statements in the bible that have clear relationships to historical and geographical facts as those that do not. The least credible non-mythical stories are those that demonstrate a moral, by the way. The location of Eden isn't even a story, but a location, except for the minor parts that say 'guarded on the east' and 'arrived from the west' (paraphrased).

Wrong again. Plenty of fiction uses real place-names, and plenty of fiction uses fake place names. Just because Tolkien's books have detailed descriptions of Minas Tirith doesn't make it real. Secondly, aetiologies (explanations for something) which the Bible uses frequently, include several place names, some of which are clearly fictional (Babel), or else a conflation (e.g. Mt. Sinai/Horeb). Thirdly, you'll need to demonstrate that relationships to historical and geographical facts really do demonstrate that these places exist, and then you'll have to demonstrate that they actually were not mistaken.

Quote:

Also, 'load of bullocks' is a crude forceful statement that serves to distract from the truth by the sheer force of words. It is similar to 'bullsh-t', and I have never met a person that used such crude forceful language that was actually in the right, as such language is used to forcefully distract from honest curiosity.

Evidently, you've never been to England then. Anyway, this may be a cultural difference, and for that, I apologise. You sure do spend a lot of time explaining these, even as you spend lots of time engaging in hilarious ad hominems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

'The very first paragraph of the article proves why Eden was a true place, without supporting any of the obvious biblical fallacies regarding Eden.'

It does nothing of the sort."

-That is simply a false statement, as can clearly be seen by actually reading the article.

Please, this is grasping for straws. Instead of repeating to us that the article can show us the light, expand this argument for us, because it's painfully weak and short.

Quote:

"All it does is presume what atheists think, and I'll wager good money that none of the regulars in this forum believe that Eden is some mystical place in another dimension."

-That falsely portrays the beliefs of what Eden is
considered to be as the beliefs of what Eden actually is.
That is a rather blatant deception. Does Celsus use these
types of deceptions on several people? I see that he has
made a large number of posts on the infidels' forum, which
suggests that he has a general desire to disrupt the truth.
If he tries this kind of stuff just one more time, then I
recommend that he be banned from the forum.

I believe calling someone a liar is against forum rules. Further to that, there isn't even any support for this assertion, nor have you at all explained why Eden must exist. Let's formalise your first paragraph a little shall we?

Eden is either a mythical place in another dimension or a place destroyed in a worldwide flood.
If a worldwide flood had occurred, then Eden would not exist
If a worldwide flood is false, then Eden may in fact correspond to a modern geographical area.
A worldwide flood never occurred
Eden exists

Clearly the problem is with your premise (1)--a false dichotomy, bifurcation, etc. Why don't you start a poll right here in BC&H, and see how many people accept that the latter option of your premise (1) is correct? You never did explain why the mythical option is not to be taken seriously, except for saying it exists in another dimension, which nobody here would accept.

Quote:

"Philistines and other Sea People are from Mycenaea, not
Anatolia, for a start. Abraham was not the founder of
Judaism."
"Cush is known as an anachronism"

-Those are all unsupported statements.

:notworthy :notworthy You crack me up! This is the height of irony coming from someone whose essay contains not a single external source. Never mind, you want my references? Take for a start, the fact that archaeologists call the pottery associated with Sea Peoples and early Philistines Mycenaean IIIC:1B pottery. I wonder why they do this? Secondly, you can check up any of the following references:

Amihai Mazar, 1992, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Anchor Doubleday

Trude Dothan, 1989 "The Arrival of the Sea People--Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan" Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 49, 1-14. Dothan happens to be a world expert on the Sea Peoples.

Trude Dothan, 1994, "Tel Miqne-Ekron: An Iron Age I Philistine Settlement in Canaan", in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation edited by N. Silberman and D. Small, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield Academic Press

T. Dothan & M. Dothan, 1992, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines, Macmillan

Lawrence Stager, 1995, "The Impact of the Sea Peoples (1185-1050 BCE)", in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land edited by T.E. Levy, Facts on File. Oh, Stager's another leading figure, so another reference:

L. Stager, 1998, "Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel" in The Oxford History of the Biblical World edited by M.D. Coogan, Oxford University Press

J.C.H. Laughlin, 2000, Archaeology and the Bible, Routledge

Would you like some more references to support my "assertion" that Philistines and other Sea Peoples are not from Anatolia, but in fact, from Mycenaea? Too easy, all I have to do is look up any mainstream archaeology text that mentions Philistines, Sea Peoples, and their pottery. Now, would you like to see my sources on Cush?

Quote:

-The sumerians were conquered near 1900BCE if I remember correctly; they were not eradicated, the latter of which would ensure the eradication of their mythology.

Grasping for straws here. If Israel rose 1000 years later, and what was left of Sumer was a small band of people, you'll have to come up with a better explanation for the transmission of myth.

Quote:

"(wherever that is)"
"The funniest part"
-Those statements are false portrayal via emotional reaction, clearly indicative as a desire to avoid logic. I request that interested third parties actually read the article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by
that deception.

Who said I'm trying to convince anyone? I was just having a laugh, because I found it hilarious. Yes, I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Anyone can go read the article, but they'd be foolish to accept anything you write without first seeing your sources.

Quote:

"Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, David Rohl, Eric Von
Daniken, any of these people sound familiar to you, Ed?"
-That falsely portrays valid name relationships as grossly invalid name relationships. It is also an emotional response which contains the aforementioned false assumption. I request that interested third parties
actually read the article and judge it for themself so as not to be fooled by that deception. (I know that I've said that last sentence many times, but it serves to emphasize it's importance)

Ok ok, enough already, you're killing me. Your sources, please, if not those people.

Quote:

All of these deceptions indicate that Celsus has a strong
blind bias against the people that he perceives as his
enemies or opponents, which is in turn caused by a blind
bias toward oneself, namely the dominance drive. That in
turn means that everything that Celsus says, in every
thread and not just this one, should be regarded with a
high degree of scrutiny. He's high-maintenence. It is my
guess that Celsus is politically a laizzes-fairist, that
is, a person who believes in the chaotic competitive state
of an absence of government regulation, as such a state is
conducive to dominance. Am I right?

:notworthy :notworthy This has to be the funniest ad hominem I've ever read. People are going to think you're my sock puppet or something. It may even be bordering on offensive, seeing as I've debated libertarians, minarchists, and other crackpots among the 2000+ posts you've noticed I have. But then you went and spelled it wrong, and I fell over myself laughing again.

Quote:

I will be sure to report all of the aforementioned
underhanded deceptions to the moderator. I will try to
ignore the deceptions that will inevitably follow in the
replies to this reply. All I can say to third parties is
this: Read the original article and all of my posts and
judge them and everything else for yourself, and be
cautious of deceptions by all individuals, including
myself, though I have made no deceptions.

Very well, in case you haven't been paying attention: Your sources, please.

Joel

Dean Anderson · 05-14-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Graham Hancock, Zechariah Sitchin, David Rohl, Eric Von Daniken, any of these people sound familiar to you, Ed?

Actually, I don't think it is fair to class David Rohl with these other crackpots. His methodology is much stronger - since he is a trained Egyptologist and Archaeologist - even if his conclusions may still be wrong. Additionally, his theories are basically mundane rather than invoking outlandish Space-Aliens-Genetically-Engineered-Us type claims.

Come to think of it, the first third of his book Legend is a discussion of the potential location of the place later mythologised as Eden. It is slightly similar in a few places (but only a few) to Edward's argument - but much more strongly reasoned and referenced. However, he comes to very different conclusions about where (and when) the place that was mythologised into Eden was.

Edward: Have you read Rohl's theories? I would be interested to see what you think of the quality of his evidence...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

What's the point if a place named Eden existed at some time in the past? Does this change anything in our thinking of the bible or what?Please explain.

I don't understand this question. Why does there need to be a 'point'? Why does it need to change our thinking about the Bible to be a topic worthy of study? Are simple interest and curiosity not enough reason to discuss this matter?

Celsus · 05-14-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier

Actually, I don't think it is fair to class David Rohl with these other crackpots.

No, Rohl is as much gibberish as everyone else, only he doesn't take it quite as far. You can go look for his antics on ANE-List sometime last year for a start. His problem is that he thinks that the kings can be shifted up and down as convenient, forgetting the very important fact of correspondence between rulers that fixes our chronologies. See here for more. I wrote some stuff at Theology Web, but the forum seems to be down.

Of course chronological revision is a worthy practice, and should be done meticulously, questioning everything (Finkelstein's attempts, however criticised, are a good example of how it can be done right). Rohl's problem is that he is trying to forcefit the Amarna Age into the Bible and leads inexorably to contradiction upon contradiction.

Joel

Tyler Durden · 05-14-2004, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdwardSmith

I see that he has
made a large number of posts on the infidels' forum, which
suggests that he has a general desire to disrupt the truth.
If he tries this kind of stuff just one more time, then I
recommend that he be banned from the forum.

This is your argument:

Premise1: Person X has posted a number of times at Discussion Board Y.
P2: The number of posts is a direct correlation of truthfulness.
P3: The more a poster posts at DiscBoard Y, the less truthful the person is.
Conclusion1: Therefore, those with a high number of posts are dishonest and deserve to be banned.
P4: Person X has over 2000 posts at Discussion Board Y.
C2: Therefore, Person X is a dishonest lying sack of shit.

I agree with your argument only if you can somehow convince me that the infidels are necessarily the only ones with a high amount of posts on this board.

Celsus · 05-14-2004, 01:55 AM

By the way, I'll be away this weekend. I will look forward to coming back to this thread though.

Joel

P.S. I forgot to point out that if Abraham is the founder of Judaism, how come it's named after one of his great-grandchildren? Too funny by half.
P.P.S. Could I request that the side discussion between spin and me on Dan be split from this topic (and then you can do anything you want with the rest of this thread, preferably sending it some~where else)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2004, 03:00 PM	#21
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[mod hat on] OK, everybody, play nice. Mr. Smith has unknowlingly stirred up more of a storm than he intended. EdwardSmith - there are some formatting tools on this board. You can put text into quote boxes, you can highlight text. If you don't mind, I will fix up your earlier posts so I can read them.

05-14-2004, 01:55 AM	#30
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	By the way, I'll be away this weekend. I will look forward to coming back to this thread though. Joel P.S. I forgot to point out that if Abraham is the founder of Judaism, how come it's named after one of his great-grandchildren? Too funny by half. P.P.S. Could I request that the side discussion between spin and me on Dan be split from this topic (and then you can do anything you want with the rest of this thread, preferably sending it some~where else)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.