spin

I really don't understand how anyone who has learnt anything at all about the ANE could take a total idiot like Veligoofsky seriously. This creep was an insult to scholarly pursuit. He was unaware of much of the evidence available to him, choosing in his stupor to ignore the mainstream developments in chronology and fantasticate a system which could not but be in error. That a halfwit of this kind could be so popular is an insult to popular culture.


spin

WILLOWTREE

I post evidence with source cites and argument.

In response, Spin and Celsus go ad hom ballistic = the truth hurts and inability to refute.

My next post will list all of the assertions by the above posters and request them to cite their sources and make an argument.

What we have is implacable anger because of the evidence.

What we have is a flurry of insults as an attempt to get an Admin to shut down the floor wiping.

I will proceed as stated above and ask that you refrain from any further "arguing the man" derailments against me or my sources.

The above tactic only supports your inability to refute the bas-reliefs at the Karnak Temple.

Dr. Scott: "Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the past century because he refuted them all ......thats why he is so hated".

The preceding comment was directed at all 20th century scholarship which held that Egyptian chronology was accurate, which of course is just about everyone.

The Bible teaches: The majority is ALWAYS wrong.

WT

funinspace

Do such comments really help your cause? Spin cited several specific items and sources, and all I have seen you do is declare yours view as truth without any specific treatment of his information.

Yet, probably most here see you as "the angry young man". I'll bet even allot of the Christians on this board think this too...

So the majority of Americans believe in the Christian God, ergo there's no Xian God??? Or maybe by this logic David Koresh or Joseph Smith are right, since they are probably even more in the minority than your views?

Toto

WillowTree: This board treasures free speech and the free exploration of ideas. But there comes a time when you've had your chance to persuade, and have failed repeatedly. You heap abuse on your opponents, and, when anyone here returns an insult, you claim that is evidence of the righteousness of your ideas.

The only think in my power right now is to put this thread on the slippery slope down to the basement and give it a shove, so here it goes.

Celsus

Oh dear Willow. You mean the way you insulted Finkelstein without demonstrating even the slightest knowledge of what Finkelstein has to say? The reason we are telling you your sources are nuts is because you haven't actually posted a bloody argument. You think because:
That it follows that
?
This, my logic-challenged friend, is a classic non sequitur. That means, in basic English for you, "It doesn't follow." If it wasn't so amusing, I would simply ignore you, but I like to have a bit of a laugh every now and then, and what better than from someone who insults everyone who knows more than him while wearing his ignorance on his sleeve? I might even hold judgment that you'd be able to demonstrate any sort of archaeological evidence that Solomon began building a temple, but, unfortunately, there is none. Heck, nobody can even find this supposed temple in the tiny backwater hamlet that was 10th century Jerusalem. See, the reason why we haven't driven your arguments into mashed potatoes is that you haven't presented anything that demonstrates the faintest idea of how logic or science works.

Well nobody has found any evidence against the idea that the Bible was handed down to us by super-intelligent rats from Sirius. That makes it true, doesn't it Willow? Come on, the only person evading is you, who refuses to fill up a simple table comparing various genealogies and ages, who won't look at any standard texts on Biblical archaeology, and who hasn't managed to put forward an argument without ridiculous numbers of fallacies within. All you do is appeal to your resident nutcrackers Velikovsky and Scott, both of whom should have been sent to the looney bin or at least had their arses sued off for fleecing gullible and ignorant halfwits for all they were worth. There's a simple reason why nobody who has a basic qualification in archaeology pays any attention to them. Here's a suggestion, you get any one of those 4 references I gave you, and you refute it with archaeological evidence combined with a strong theoretical framework. No? I didn't think so.
Good. I suggest you take a look at the 4 references I gave you to check up on the Exodus. Do you want more? There's little point giving you references when you're just going to blatantly ignore them. Again.
No, it's not anger, it's derision. There's a considerable difference, Willow. We're not laughing with you, for a start.
You mean like the way you insulted Finkelstein because you haven't got the faintest idea what a prize-winning archaeologist has to say about chronology?
Dear Willow. Please give us the date of the Karnak reliefs, and support this with a scholarly reference from a peer-reviewed journal dating to the last 20 years. No? I didn't think so.
Do you think by taking someone else's assertions that makes it any less of an assertion? Didn't you just ask, "Why does anyone think they can get accurate information about the Bible from an atheist ?" I guess we can ignore Velikovsky on the grounds that he's an atheist, right?
What, precisely, are Velikovsky's and Scott's qualifications for reading hieroglyphics and the hieratic script, hm?
You mean like how the majority of people in the world believe the Earth is round? This is too stupid for words.

Joel

WILLOWTREE

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...15#post2244515

The above message contains the evidence which fully supports and proves that Thutmose III lived and reigned in the 10th century.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...96#post2245996

My next post will list all of the assertions by the above posters and request them to cite their sources and make an argument.

Here is the response of my two chief opponents:

Willowtree: The above paragraph is pure hate. If any of it were true then it should be no problem refuting my initial message posted at the top. But opponent here has typed a very large insult. We now know what you think of Velikovsky. Please engage the evidence and support these insults.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post2244707

Spin:

Willowtree: Thank you for engaging the evidence. The only "point" Spin makes is the last sentence phrased as a question.

Spin is asserting the bas-reliefs in question are more or less duplicated on other Egyptian walls.

Where ?

The bas-reliefs in question, as meticulously described in the initial link posted at the top, spectacularly match with O.T. descriptions.

Spin has evaded the top link and its plain and clear evidence and arguments produced by Velikovsky.

Secular personages always ask, "What is the evidence for the Bible and its Deity ?"

Answer: The links posted are from "Ages in Chaos" [1952], and of course Velikovsky was a Jewish atheist - no bias for the Divine as he was known for his outrageous natural explanations of O.T. miracles. The Karnak wall depicted was inscribed by Thutmose III and the reliefs depict the booty taken from his rout of ancient Kadesh/Jerusalem.

We have exact matches of voluminous Temple vessels taken by Shishak as related in the O.T.

This means Shishak of the Bible is Thutmose III and he lived in the 10th century and not the 15th as assumed.

This means the Solomonic Temple is a fact. This means O.T. chronology ASSUMED incorrect by Egyptologists based on their assumption that Thutmose III lived in the 15th century is obliterated. This means the Exodus cited in 1Kings 6:1 and its 485 years means what it says = 15th century Exodus a historic fact.

All of this supports the existence of the Deity assumed in the Bible. Now we know why secular entities try to make the Bible seen as false. They rightly assume if any historical claims are true then this supports the larger claim of the Deity controlling history, which of course, supports His existence.

Spin has EVADED the contents of the bas-reliefs in question and has attempted to assert that its contents are nothing special, that they blend in with all the others = evasion of each vessel depicted and the O.T. match.

Darwinists can absolutely declare obscure fossil scraps are transitional but the ability to make this much easier match suddenly escapes them = unwillingness because it confirms a major Biblical claim.

Again, the secular desire to entertain evidence for the Divine is exposed to be a false desire as they evade and poison the evidence with deliberate non-sequiturs and blatantly ridiculous illogic.

Why has Egyptology refused to acknowledge the bas-reliefs on the Karnak wall and their voluminous match with O.T. descriptions ?

Answer: Proof of bias.

Willowtree: With the evidence posted this is what the know-everything about history and archaeology Celsus wrote.

Willowtree: If it is long refuted then why did you post ad hom insults ?

Celsus is attempting to signal the Admins that he is invoking his perceived status as board authority and for them to close down this topic. IOW, he just wants the evidence to go away.

Willowtree: Spin begins with an insult and insults are indications of anger borne out of inability to refute. This was opponents response to this:

"Atheist Propaganda:

"Egyptian texts and records never mention the Plagues and Exodus"

IOW, they set up a straw man as "proof" against the Biblical claims.

Response: Show me ONE recorded defeat that a Near East nation makes ?

There are no official Egyptian version of the Plagues or Exodus BECAUSE NEAR EAST NATIONS DO NOT RECORD DEFEATS !

What Egyptian would record the destruction of their country ?

Only the Bible does = evidence of Divine."

WT: I never mentioned the Ipuwer texts. As anyone can read above I said "official Egyptian" version or text does not exist as is constantly reminded by secular entities.

But Spin then makes an illogical evasion of the Ipuwer text and its unmistaken match to the book of Exodus accounts of the Plagues. Again, to assert the text in question is X while ignoring the O.T. match is evasion of evidence.

What more do you want from two different sources matching in facts ?

IOW, Spin is following the corrupt lead of Egyptology and insisting despite what anyone can read for themself that what we read is not what it means. IOW, the match between Ipuwer and the book of Exodus - just ignore.

But Spin IGNORES my main point altogether:

The reason there is no OFFICIAL Egyptian text or records testifying to the Plagues or Exodus is because no Near East nation ever records defeats.

The Torah says Egypt was destroyed. What person would need reminding of this ?

The straw man set up by Egyptology:

"Where is the record of monumental events like the Plagues and the Exodus in official text ?"

Response: The question above is asked because there is none. The question ASSUMES such events would be recorded.

Egyptology must first show that defeats are recorded in any manner, whether by writing or inscription or bas-relief or what have you.

Fact: NO NEAR EAST NATION RECORDS ANY DEFEATS.*

*except the Bible.

Therefore, the question is a straw man offered as evidence against a major claim.

The Plagues and Exodus, if true, are the most severe defeat any ancient civilization could suffer. Why would any Egyptian record what everyone wanted to get behind them ?

The lack of any official Egyptian account of the Plagues and Exodus is in accordance of all Near East kingdoms NOT RECORDING ANY DEFEATS.


Willowtree: Please back up your many assertions with source cites.

Spin, again, evades the endless matchings of the vessel inscriptions with their descriptions in the O.T.

But of course Spin can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be transitional = LOL !

"Ages in Chaos" page 144:

"The historians claim to know one famous Kadesh, located by them on the Orontes River in Northern Syria. But in the list of Thutmose III the city of Kadesh is named as the FIRST among one hundred and nineteen Palestinian (not Syrian) cities; in second place is Megiddo, the scene of the battle; and one hundred and seventeen other cities follow them. This Kadesh could not be a city in Syria, for in the Palestine campaign Thutmose did not reach the Orontes. There was a Kadesh in Galilee, Kadesh Naphtali, mentioned a few times in the Scriptures; but what would be the purpose of placing this unimportant city at the top of the list just before Megiddo, it became a matter of conjecture."

Page 145:

"Why was Jerusalem not on the list of Thutmose III, and where was the king-city of Kadesh ?"

Is Jerusalem anywhere else called Kadesh ? END VELIKOVSKY CITE.

Then Velikovsky cites 8 times in Scripture where Kadesh is referred to as Jerusalem. Kadesh meaning "holy".

Willowtree: Mindless assertions evading all the previous evidence and argument. Please back-up these assertions with evidence and source cites.

A hieroglyphic name spelled "Sosenk" cut the names of cities subject to him on the outside of the southern wall of the Karnak Temple. These cities are represented by figures like the city-figures of Thutmose's bas-relief, and it is obvious that Sosenk copied that mural. But whereas Thutmose's list consists of well known names familiar from the Scriptures, Sosenk's list contains mostly unknown names. [Ages in Chaos, pages 164, 165]

According to James Breasted, the Sosenk inscriptions are too vague and indecisive to furnish any solid basis for a study of the campaign. The O.T. reference to his sack of Jerusalem is the only way to surmise the relief was the memorial of a specific campaign. [Records, Vol. IV, Sec. 709]

If Sosenk is Shishak then where in the relief is the spoils of the treasures taken from the Jerusalem Temple ?

We don't have to rely on linguistic identifications in this issue. The Karnak wall is visual and its cuttings depict the Jerusalem Temple vessels. This renders moot any attempt to evade or insist the Karnak bas-reliefs are not from the 10th century.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Biased unsupported charges of an atheist helping other atheists.

I have posted zero abuse.

Celsus and Spin have posted much abuse.

Until you support your charges are invents.

Or are you going to assert victory via Admin powers as you have threatened = actions of the defeated saving their own face.

Go to "Standing for Christ" debate board and this one-way floor wiping can continue without biased Moderating inventing a way to win for her atheist friends.

http://www.standing4christ.com/forum/

Celsus wouldn't dare step out from atheist protection.

I have not engaged in anything Toto falsely accuses me of.

IOW, Toto is enraged with my logic which simply points out "How could an atheist conclude for the Bible" and says this is abuse.

While she ignores the voluminous insult responses to evidence and argument.

Same m.o. here - all to evade the irrefutable Ages in Chaos evidence.

I have proven that when atheists CLAIM they are open for evidence supporting the Divine they are lying - straight out.

All you do is insult and hope other atheists follow the lead because the evidence has you enraged.

Previously, I said Celsus was very knowledgeable about history and archaeology.

Now I have proven myself wrong.

He is all outer shell.

He refused to debate me one on one and now I smell blood in the water.

Celsus is source made of straw.

I challenge you to debate ANY issue ?

But it would have to be at a christian board where these Admins cannot save you as Toto is about to do.

You are exposed as a poser - feigning to be somebody you are not.

I have downloaded you refusal to debate to use elsewhere.

I am comforted - you have chickened out.

If you change your mind: pyramidial@yahoo.com

But I won't hold my breath.

You can't hide behind Toto's skirt and be respected. Where does Celsus ever engage evidence or debate an opponent ?

He doesn't = straw source.

WT

Toto

Hi WT - I am not enraged, in fact I can't stop laughing. :rolling: And it amuses me to see you attribute almost all of modern scholarship to atheists.

I am not protecting Celsus. And by moving this thread, I have lost my moderating powers over it.

spin

I cite primary sources, such as ARE's texts and Willow Tree ignores them. He calls people names and ignores the fact that his basic tool is ad hominem. This person is neither aware of his methodology nor the fact that he does exactly what he claims other people are doing.

He has shown that he knows nothing about the material he is supposed to be analysing, knows nothing about the sources, knows nothing about the field, and has no appreciation of logic and evidence.

Palease give me evidence, not pseudoscience. A creationist has more up his sleave than this fellow.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

While you insult away.

This person has not responded to my statements about this relief.

The world's historians have assigned Veligoofsky his rightful position in history. Elsewhere.

Yet more unsupported claims. I'm certainly used to this.


ispn

WILLOWTREE

Celsus's mommy moves the topic as an insult = rage about evidence = invulnerable observation.

WT