Re: Velikovsky - greatest scholar of the 20th Century

On Apr 28, 5:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:24 pm, edward_...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Just like I said: by absence of pottery!


Your original commentary included two claims:

1. Kenyon's Jericho dating.

2. Assumption that a 15th century Conquest could not have happened
(the Biblical date c.1410 BC.) based on Kenyon.

I made an error about Kenyon; I wrongly assigned to her the accepted
minimalist dating of a Conquest (13th century). Kenyon claims to have
"corrected" Garstang's errors, but since the historic accuracy of the
book of Joshua is at stake we know Kenyon had a motive to move the
fall of Jericho. Garstang remains, his work stands as the best
objective assessment of when Jericho fell.

Nonsense. Again, you try proof by assertion. It won't work out of
Sunday School, Ray.



This is the date that Wood redated to 1500 BC; see the cite previously
noted.

I said nothing of a "missing day". Show me or retract.

Ray: "The context of Dr. Scott's quote was referring to Velikovsky
proving
that the Earth stood still and when the Exodus took place (15th
century BC). The latter proves Biblical chronology correct and
Egyptian AS PRESENTED BY ATHEIST EGYPTOLOGISTS WRONG. "

You are a minimalist - all is explained.
Ray

No, Ray. Only because you ignore data that doesn't mollify your ego.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

As far as the minimalist, you do relaize that Feinstein is not a
minimalist of the Copenhagen school? Do you know what he claimed?
Certainly EVERYTHING Feinstien claimed is not correct. OTOH, many
people claim Feinstein said things he never claimed. I feel the issue
is up in the air, but that the account of David's kingdom in the bible
isn't absolutely correct in all particulars either.



The united monarchy under David claims territory conquest from the
Euphrates to the borders of Egypt. David reigned c.1000 BC. Show me
one ANE nation that claims a victory in their annals for this time
period or shut the *** up?


(Um...Ray...that's not a question) Population studies do not support a
population size that would support settlements required to settle
David's area, nor does other data. This is an argument from
Finklestein. Obviously you are not familiar with Finklestein's work
and are therfore not competent to comment on it.

When the official
report about Mazer's Iron Age II pottery in the Citadel comes out and
is critiqued, we'll know more. (I do assume you're familiar with the
issue, as well as with why Feinstein dated his pottery at a different
site. Personally I think he was trying for a more precise date than
the pottery would give him--I mean, does everybody throw out their
pottery in the same year? Though I think you're just blowing smoke and
tryiing to sound like you know moore than you really do)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you are a Finkelstein minimalist I do not feel insulted. Anyone
can toss data around. If you were as knowledgeable as you claim you
would have never posted ten thousand links attempting to prove your
jumbled points. Pasting links is the first sign that said person is a
rank amateur. Education by Google, when did you graduate Edward?

Yawn. You're losing it Ray. You've got no data, no arguments. You
amuse me.



Rutherford has proven when the Exodus occurred (1453 BC). We have two
star alignments that create a fixed date. From this benchmark dating
the archaeology contained in the Great Pyramid proves said event
occurred 1453 BC.

Atually, no. Establishing the correct sothic date is an interestiing
question, though. Since you're familiar with sothic dating, you knpw
about the argument in Grimal's History of Ancient Egypt; obviously
you've never read the section about the exodus in Redford's Rgypt,
Israel and Canaan in Ancient Times. The poiint of the whole thing is
that the Egyptian kinglist is a mess; the cannonical version wasn't
written until well after the event (Manetho's kinglist), duration of
the reigns is obviously wrong, there are obvious lacumae, on and on.
Grimal will tell you more, at great lenght.

This data proves Kenyon false and corroborates
Garstang. I bet you do not even know who Rutherford is - do you?
Since
you are a Minimalist you could not know anything about objective
evidence and those who produce it.

Namecalliing. No data, no logic. As usual.

You seem to be unable to provide any data or evidence. You offered a
debate on Finklestein. I doubt you know the difference between
Finklestien and the other Copenhagen minimalists. You are unable to
determine the significance of Mazur's IAII discoveries. You are
obviiously not equipted to debate or discuss the issue.


Please do not waste my time with your amateurish presentations. I only
gave you attention because you are a newbie. Now that I know you are
uneducated I will not read your posts anymore.

Translation: I have had my ass handed to me in a discussion and don't
want to be further embarassed.
You're a clown, Ray, and I've shown you up. Been nice having a laugh
at your expense.
I'm sorry you were too easy to be a match for me.


Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Loading