Re: Help me find the Hebrews without the Bible

First and foremost, I note that once again ol' Cinnabon here side steps the issues and no evidence of his claims came forth.

Inabón Yunes wrote:
How can I explain something this simple to such a brut?

Well, there's your first problem, you don't know your audience.

Listen, I am nobody...

I know!

I just have an opinion which you have no respect for.

Well, you've got that right. Here's why: 1) You laid out a method in the OP to this thread that you obviously haven't followed in this discussion. If you had you would have discovered that the Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, all mention them. No, not perhaps as much as they mention bigger players on the scene, but talk about them nonetheless. Your claim that you haven't found any of this is false since you obviously didn't even look. 2) In forming and reporting your opinion you consistently get basic facts that are easily researched completely and utterly wrong. You say you're a marine scientist, think of how much respect you'd have for someone who said sharks are mammals because they poop, and when corrected merely replied that they are entitled to their opinion that you simply don't like. 3) you ask for help, and when some pointers are given, you reject it, but not for a single valid reason, but instead for fallacious, ill-informed reasons
4) You regularly change the goalposts and the issue from discussing the evidence for Hebrews outside the Hebrew Bible to other things including but not limited to the historicity of what most of the people you're engaging in discussion take as legend at best if not outright mythology. Accepting the historicity and the presence of a people in the historical record is far different than accepting and believing that people's legendary history and mythology, as has been pointed out to you to no avail. Yet you persist in charging those who try to address your question as "believers", "bible thumpers" etc, and yet you fail to be able to grasp the difference between history and mythology.
5) You're a hypocrite: you whinge about insults yet feel free to insult others with regularity
6) You fail consistently to consider what you are saying and to give grounds for saying it.

Well, there's more, but that should be enough to chew on as to why you have earned my very active disrespect for you "opinion." You certainly have a right to your opinion, but don't come here and air it, ask for help, reject that help, and expect not to be called out on it.



That is fine with me. But, apparently, since I have no respect for the OT or you for that matter, you can't take it.

I could care less about your respect for the "OT" or for me, your opinion matters little. What I do care about rather passionately is the slip-shod treatment of history and linguistics for no reason other than your unproven and unsupported agenda.

You are not in bible school anymore.

Never have been, actually, and your concern about bible school and respect for the OT etc I think reveals a great deal about you.

You are not preaching to the choir and I don't have to agree with you.

No, you don't. But then, you did ask for help and then rejected that help with insults and sheer stupidity. I find it interesting that you expect to have our respect for that and for us to say nothing.

The only proof that I have, and still stands, is that I can easily proof the existance, location, culture, technology, religion and craftmanship of the Nubia Civilization, some evidence and sites dating back with no doubt, to 5k years BCE. That evidence include pottery, drawings, carvings and more recently, pyramids and paintings.
On the other hand, there is no evidence of that level of any judean, hebrew, israelite or any culture with similar names as depicted in the OT.

The point is that THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

Except there is the same sorts of evidence for the "judean, hebrew, israelite, or any culture with similar names". We've pointed you to a couple, since you couldn't be bothered to do your own research, only to have you say "Nuh uh" and give no valid reason supported with evidence for your rejection, in spite of the fact that huge numbers of scholars the world over use the same methodologies on all sorts of questions and issues related to the peoples of the past....according to you they're all wrong just because you say so.


Do you need any more proof than that?

Oh my yes, since the entire premise is wrong!

you belief in the OT,

I don't, actually.

how in the hell you can't proof, the existance of that people without any doubt.

The same that we can prove the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Mitani, etc. Your ignorance and lack of willingness to do some research instead of inventing excuses that you can't substantiate doesn't change that.

All you brought was name similarities, and that is like saying that the Korean's named their currency, the "Won", in the name of St. John.
See, the name for John in Spanish is Juan (who-ann) and the Korean currency sounds similar, I lived there for 2 years. What I am trying to say is that Juan and Won are as related as Hazaquiao and Hezekiah. Mere coincidences. The similarities between the Korean daily life to the Latin daily life are remarkable, in names, music, art, etc... That doesn't mean that the Koreans knew the Romans.

Actually, this is another fallacy drawing a false analogy. The basis of the comparison, as you've been informed several times already, isn't based on "sounds like" or phonology. Your rejection of the identification of names of people, places, etc in Assyrian texts based on this misunderstanding is, as most of your opinions in this area, based on factually erroneous beliefs.

In closing, I'll note again that no evidence on the issues, contained int he message below, to support your claims was forthcoming in this rant you posted. This would be so much smoother if you concentrated on producing good evidence and sound argumentation instead of diatribes based on ad hominem rhetoric.

"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gviiqm$dlk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Inabón Yunes wrote:

Listen, you are waiting for what evidence?

Pay attention, boyo. 1) You claim that evidence such as Taylor's prism is inadmissible because the translators are biased. You provide no evidence of such bias. 2) You claim that the transliterations from Akkadian are in error using methodology that linguists the world over use in all kinds of situations. According to you, they are all wrong: you offer no evidence. 3) Out of one side of your mouth you point to the various forms of the name "John" in various languages, and recognize them as forms of the same name, and yet can not recognize forms of the same name in two languages using two different writing systems, complaining that they are but similar (yet, are closer than some forms of "John" that you do recognize!) and somehow you've never explained why these differences are sufficient to make the connection between the two names as tenuous as you want it to be. Support your claims or sit down and shut up while the cognoscenti chat about real things.


Sit down in that chair and take your turn. Once I get real evidence that the Jews existed, then we can talk.

Or in other words, you can not support your claims, but will maintain them anyway.




It is not my burden to proof anything. It is judeo/christian's problem, not mine. They are the ones who failed to proof that the fairy tale was true.
iy
"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gvfvsg$b03$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Weland wrote:


Inabón Yunes wrote:



As I said before, when you grow up to your age, then, and only then we can share opinions, until then, chaito


In other words, you can't provide the requested evidence, and since you can not, your objection falls, and that means that you have been provided valid evidence that your position is wrong. You could have just said that instead of forcing us to translate it for you.


Still waiting for that evidence....




iy
"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gvaoco$t48$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Inabón Yunes wrote:



Well, I couldn't have said it 1/3th better that you.


Sure you could have. FOr one thing, you're argument is fallacious and as I pointed out, you're saying everyone but you and Giwer has it wrong for the sole reason cause you said so. Second, take any English sentence: an person born in England is going to say it differently than a person born in California who will say it differently than someone in South Africa. But all 3 when reading the text know and understand what it says IN SPITE of different pronunciations. John, Sean, Ian, Iohannes etc are all "John" in spite of different pronunciations and orthography in different languages. So offer some proof that modern scholarship has misunderstood Akkadian.




iy
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4a17c38f$0$21125$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Weland wrote:




Inabón Yunes wrote:




Now we are getting somewhere!
Am I wrong to suggest that the translators could have been bias to find what they wanted?



Yes. Offer evidence instead of innuendo. Or at least be man enough to admit that you are finding fault with the translators of a language you yourself haven't studied because you are biased to find them so.



Is it not true that we have no idea if the words that they claim to have descipher, have no real connection to the words they try to relate? WHAT A MESS!



No.



The gentleman is pointing out something extremely obvious.

Let me direct your attention to English.

There are a dozen ways to pronounce the same sentence in English today and the BBC used captions for some English speakers. This does not include American and Australian variations.

Yet the best argument is a "sounds like" argument.

This is before one includes all the pronunciations for English over the last thousand years and still the best the believers has is "sounds like."

And when mention of made of long dead languages whose pronunciation cannot possibly be known are "compared" to other long dead languages whose pronunciation cannot possibly be known we still have nothing more than a "sounds like" argument.

And as the skeptical position has always been that believers have nothing better than the names sound alike it is unclear why believers are doing nothing more than confirming they have nothing more than sound alike.

The absolute absurdity of knowing a pronunciation in one place and time matches the pronunciation of another language in another place and time is what believers are trying to claim is possible just to prove beyond all doubt that they have nothing better than the names sound alike.

Do you believers love to argue for the sake of arguing? Good. Please start a good like of argumentation instead of confirming all you have is the names sound alike. That was the original statement that got you believers upset and made you all do the work to prove beyond all doubt you have nothing more than names that sound alike.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help me find the Hebrews without the Bible
    ... You claim that evidence such as Taylor's prism is inadmissible because the translators are biased. ... Out of one side of your mouth you point to the various forms of the name "John" in various languages, and recognize them as forms of the same name, and yet can not recognize forms of the same name in two languages using two different writing systems, complaining that they are but similar and somehow you've never explained why these differences are sufficient to make the connection between the two names as tenuous as you want it to be. ... And when mention of made of long dead languages whose pronunciation cannot possibly be known are "compared" to other long dead languages whose pronunciation cannot possibly be known we still have nothing more than a "sounds like" argument. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Why Rational People Have Irrational Beliefs
    ... Why Rational People Have Irrational Beliefs ... The Origin of Faith ... sociopolitical aspects) then it is belief without evidence. ... to the rescue of the believers in the moment of their need. ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"
    ... and that therefore the lack of this evidence is EVIDENCE ... jesus himself said that believers could drink poison and suffer no ... Jesus said that this would happen to certain believers not all ... They would hop to church, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Collins to head NIH?
    ... denigration attitude toward non believers by believers is ... the sort of insight that snex does not. ... Nobody owes you any such evidence, unless they are trying to persuade ... religion, you have a right to insist on any conditions you wish, that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Forgeries and frauds in archaeology and the classics
    ... > As long as there are 'believers' there will be forgeries and frauds. ... associations that are totally unrelated in any way as "evidence". ... forgery - no further proof required". ... Secondly a person that age usually has somewhat shaky hands, ...
    (sci.archaeology)