WILLOWTREE

Opponets can assert in defiance of all facts and logic anyway.

It sure does SUPPORT/EVIDENCE of Divine because mankind as evidenced by all the other nations have not recorded ONE defeat between ALL of them put together. This supports the claim that the Bible and its content was controlled and authored by God.

WT

spin

They didn't of course. The vessels on the walls referred to were from Kadesh on the Orontes. There are a few descriptions of Tuthmosis's activities in the area which included Kadesh, unless one wants to include Arvad as a neighbour of Jerusalem, if one overlooks the fact that the texts specify Kadesh -- here Velikovsky ingeniously concludes that the Egyptians would call Jerusalem after its holy (kadesh) temple. The Kadesh from where the materials shown on the walls of Karnak were taken was in the vicinity of Arvad, Naharin (Mitanni), and Tunip (also on the Orontes).

Only someone totally ignorant of geography and philology might conclude that what the Egyptians wrote didn't say what they indicated, ie not Kadesh on the Orontes, but the holy (kadesh) temple of Jerusalem.

To get to the equivalence between Tuthmosis III and Shishak, one has to negate the much more obvious equivalent of Sheshonq (I) with Shishak (the phonology is very close). This king traditionally dates to the approximate period of Solomon and Rehoboam, using biblical indications. Tuthmosis on the other hand is 400 years or so earlier, using traditional indications. And Velikovsky showed himself to be so incompetent at history and philology that he was not able to muster a credible case to make one contemplate the possibility of his outlandishness being worthy of note.

Just ad hominem for lack of argument. These statements are all unsupported. Nobody denies... Nobody denies... Demonstrate what you want. The rhetoric says nothing.

Willow Tree, you demonstrate that you have not one clue about history or what makes historical fact. Your conclusions are based on literature not history. You have demonstrated nothing by your diatribe. What you need to do is demonstrate your historical sources rather than assume them.

This is just non sequitur.

When you already have your conclusions etched into your brain, who needs evidence anyway? You wouldn't -- couldn't -- listen to it.

Oh, how presumptuous. I hope it makes you feel good. You can't make anyone listen to poor you, so the godless will suffer.

Great formula for not listening to anyone. "I already know the truth, so whatever you say is worthless."

Would someone tie a rope around his leg before his head floats him away?


spin

spin

Show me one Israelite inscription which records a defeat.

Show me one Israelite inscription which records a defeat.

How many Near East nations record any victory during the reign of Mickey Mouse?

Basic problem for poor Willow Tree: he has already assumed his conclusions, so can show nothing.

This stuff just shows once again Willow Tree's total ignorance of the material he has probably never read firsthand.

The I-pu-wer Papyrus has been misused and abused by Velikovsky and his descendents for decades. They don't take any notice of the fact that I-pu-wer reflects a genre of Egyptian literature. What this means, for the benefit of Willow Tree who won't read the material, is that there are various texts which look at the decay of standards and the dissolution of the society. One can read the Instruction of Merikare and the Prophecy of Neferty. These texts are fundamentally political and critical of the society of the time. I-pu-wer is one of these texts. The terrible things that happen are the result of the decay of society.

One can read the texts in Breasted's "Ancient Records of Egypt", which you can basically download in enormous PDF files from here.


spin

Celsus

:rolling: :rolling:

Willow, willow. Don't you know that up to the 1970s, Biblical archaeology was an overwhelmingly conservative affair? That remark (1975!) is criticising the biblical conservatives. It was only in the late 70s that this trend began to be overturned, particularly by the influx of good Israeli (Jewish) archaeologists entering the field and Bill Dever (at that time a Christian, before Willow comes up with more speil about atheists). Note that none of these conservative Christians and Jews of the 1970s accepted the Exodus in the 15th century. Most of them saw it as a slower gradual process, because the evidence doesn't lie, willow. No anti-Semitic charges now, please, Professor Willow.
Don't be idiotic. Show me where "Fink" says he's an atheist.
Why does anyone think they can get accurate information about the Bible from one who holds it as their dogma? This line of reasoning is just plain stupid Willow, and your continued use of it just demonstrates that you are unable to debate the substantive points of any of this.
Another baseless assertion. Do you know who awards the Dan David Prize to begin with?
Substance Willow, substance. Finkelstein actually has something in common with Velikovsky: He's a chronological revisionist. But while Velikovsky got laughed out of lecture theatres, Finkelstein went about picking up prizes. You might actually learn a thing or two from him.
:rolling: :rolling:

Sorry Willow, but the one who's becoming increasingly isolated today is Herschel Shanks (who, incidentally, doesn't buy an Exodus either--are you going to call Shanks a phoney too?) with his clutching of straws over the James ossuary. Don't you think that Finkelstein being awarded a prize means that "senior archaeologists" have come out in support of him? Possibly? Or perhaps you think he awarded the prize to himself.
My Willow, with lucid, in-depth, substantive, thoughtful critiques like this, I wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
Nonsense. This is not an argument minimalists make. Can you quote some minimalists for me who do say this Willow? Hm? No more borrowing from your cherished authority but having the balls to stand on your own two feet and make the argument for yourself? You do realise that one of the "minimalists", T.L. Thompson, is a Catholic and calls himself a "neo-Albrightian"? <insert No True Scotsman fallacy here>
Do you really think all of Isaiah was written by Isaiah Willow? Presumably you've never read Isaiah then. Tell me what Isaiah was doing in Babylon, and how he lived that long then, eh?
Sigh. Insult = Inability to refute. Willow, willow... fun as this all is, you haven't yet got into any substance, except for your brief regurgitation of already long refuted Velikovskian crap. How about you tell me why Finkelstein's chronology is wrong, or why Dever is wrong. Then I'll tell you why you are (I'd ask you to critique Alt and Mendenhall (<--both Christians) but you'd be so lost you wouldn't be able to find the condoms at the checkout).

Joel

WILLOWTREE

You have completely evaded the posted links and the picture evidence.

You just assert contrary to the evidence = my on-going claim being constantly proven.

The bas-reliefs at Karnak match perfectly with the O.T. descriptions.

Your post, which I cut 98 percent of, is a giant evasion of evidence.

You are arguing atheist philosophy with both hands covering your ears while yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA so you cannot hear anything that proves the Bible.

<removed>

Its your board - you get the last predictible atheist illogical assertion denying the irrefutable picture evidence which you avoided like the plague.

WT

Celsus

He has you there spin. I saw you encouraging an innocent poster to imbibe himself on the excesses of that demonic spirit, alcohol. Weren't you flirting with those choir girls the other day, undoubtedly with corrupt intent too?

666

Amaleq13

Please avoid insults and irrelevant comments about alleged motivations. Stick to the facts.

spin

No, I dind't. I refuted the drivel.

Oh, Willow Tree, saying so makes it so. You are a magician.

Actually, if you knew anything about Egyptian iconography, you'd know that it'sd all pretty Egyptian in presentation.

YOur ignorance is bliss. Avoid what you don't want to have to deal with. Of course, you cut 98%. What else could you do in order to maintain your pathetic mental quagmire.

This is easily refutable. I am not an atheist. Demonstrate the contrary or shut uppa you face.

To understand literature you need to understand its context. You know nothing outside the bible and then you know nothing about the bible.

When I post the primary material from ARE, you make yourself look ridiculous posting old-hat Velikovsky rubbish. He's an atheist, as you claim, and you are silly enough to follow an atheist who knows nothing about what he is attempting to deal with. What does that make you. Remember the blind leading the blind. You know where you end up. Well, you would, if read more than two per cent of what you were attempting to respond to.

Avoidance? This is ripe from someone who doesn't know anything about the literature and won't read about it.


spin

spin

If you have concerns about moderation, post it in Complaints. According to the rules, only insults against members are subject to action.

So be it. Open season.

spin

Here are some drawings that make the relief that Willow Tree is referring to clearer: with the king, the left side of the panel and the right side.

What exactly doesn't look like anything found on other Egyptian walls?


spin