Link? I’ve found II to be a reliable source. If the primary sources are quoted out of context and are readily available on the web as you claim, could you please cite to them so I may see them?
Actually, it says Jesus fed multitudes with a small number of loaves and fish, not that He transformed one into the other.
Please edit, in your mind if you will, “query” to “comment.” Thanks.
Rhetorical question; “a question asked not for infomation, but for effect”= Oxford. :rolleyes:
guadere- i will give one example. The article quotes a bit of Kathleen Kenyons work on Jericho. Early Archeologists found solid evidence of a great paleolithic walled City at Jericho. The walls had been destroyed by an earthquake, and there was other destruction that showed that some folks took the city afterwards & looted it. For decades, it was assumed that that was the Jericho of the Bible, papers, books, etc, all said so. But Kenyon showed that that City was much too early, thus that Jericho, the destruction of its walls, the looting- could not have been the work of Joshua. The “infidels” writer takes this out of context to show that Kenyon proved that Jericho was not attacked by Joshua. But, if you read her works in toto, not out of context- she does no such thing. She clearly admits there were later, lesser Jerichos, and the destruction of one of them “could” fit in with the Bible passage. However, her work did not study the “other” Jerichos, thus she evinces no opinions. But “infidels” uses her work out of context to bolster his point- even tho her work does not in any way disprove the Bible. Any source that biased is suspect.
Err, cite? Quite frankly, for me you don’t have the credibility I would give Tomndebb or CKDexthaven. The infidel’s article quoted firsthand sources in enough depth that I am inclined to accept that they are legit (from what I have seen at previous viewings; the site appears to be down)–not necessarily the conclusions drawn from them, but the quotes and context themselves. Before I buy that their quotes are uniformly out of context and untrustworthy, I’d like to see your firsthand cites proving that they are all misapplied. A secondhand source that uses primary sources quoted directly as cites is far more legitmate to me than a secondary source that does not do so, barring actual evidence that the secondary source with actual primary quotes chronically misquotes.
Any source may be biased, I agree, but just because a source is biased does not make it wrong, nor is an apparently unbiased source necessarily correct; if I found a manifestly biased source that quoted Archeological Biblical Review I would not discount the quotes themselves out of hand simply because the person quoting them may be biased. If you claim that a source that I have found reliable in the past is quoting out of context, please provide the full context (or a representative cite from it) so I may judge. If I may be snitty, you did say, “Have you actually READ any of those essays in their original? I have, and “infidels” has very badly misused the scope, quotes and conclusions of the original authors. I do not accept 'infidels” as it is biased- AND it is not the “original” source you ask for. Those original sources are on the web- you can search for them, find them, read them- and then- use THAT as a cite to refute my secondary sources…" …and you did not provide these original sources, yet you claim that these primary sources are available on the web and that you have read them. Either 1) you did not read the original sources yourself or 2) you were incorrect in assuring me (and others) that they were avaliable on the web. Don’t post “facts” unless you can back them up. Even “facts” like “you can read X on the web.” Should I discount all your statements without a fair judgement simply because one was shown to be false?
cmkeller wrote:
Chaim, if you are still following this thread-
From what I could find Professor Zertal seems a legitimate source. He is affiliated with Haifa University. See
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~archlgy/zertal.html
A short summary of his research interest is at
http://www.bib-arch.org/editors_page/jericho-a.html
A brief account of the Mt. Ebal altar is at
http://www.virtualholyland.com/channels/land/archeology4.htm
Just for the record, my own two cents- if others confirm Professor Zertal’s research and accept that this altar was built at the time ascribed to Joshua, it does not prove a great deal. It leaves open the question of whether the scriptures actually record events surrounding the building of the altar, or were they written after the fact, merely weaving existing detail into a fanciful narrative.
From one of the pages at the Biblical Archaelogy Society website:
Professor Israel Finkelstein, Archaeologist, Tel Aviv University:
See
http://www.bib-arch.org/editors_page/jericho-a.html
See also Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho Ze’ev Herzog (from Ha’aretz Magazine, Friday, October 29, 1999) at http://www.bib-arch.org/editors_page/jericho1.html for a more comprehensive look at the issue.
I must admit, Daniel, that Gaudere’s comment sounds eerily familiar. How many times have I asked you to provide even so much as a more detailed explanation of your claims? Please, back up the claims that Gaudere has asked you to back up. And remember, your claim was that in general essays at II take quotes out of context. Thus far you have, at best, shown that a single essay containing an out-of-context quote slipped past the editors at II. One could use the same logic to prove a lot of things- for example that if Genesis isn’t true, then Jesus never existed.
And I must admit that I don’t understand you when it comes to rhetorical questions. To wit:
-
You make an argument.
-
Someone points out a flaw in your argument.
-
You ignore them.
-
I point out that someone has pointed out a flaw in your argument, and you haven’t addressed their point.
-
You declare that of course you didn’t try to rebut their counterargument, because (silly me) it was phrased in the form of a rhetorical question. Sheesh!
Am I missing something here?
-Ben
**
Funny, I thought you described one of its tenets by saying that no one took it seriously…
**
You seem to have a real hard time with the idea that if you make a fallacious argument, you should be taken to task for it, even if you use it to come to a correct conclusion. To extend my classroom analogy, it’s as if a child in elementary school said that 2x2=4 because 2+2=4 and addition and multiplication always give the same answers. When the teacher points out that addition and multiplication aren’t the same, then the kid angrily says, “Hey, I got the right answer, didn’t I? So if you don’t disagree with me, why are you picking nits?”
What would you like me to do? It seems you are presenting me with two options:
-
Don’t point out the fallacies in your arguments, so long as I agree with the conclusions.
-
Point out the fallacies after I first change my mind purely in order to disagree with you so that we can meet the official rules of a “debate.”
Which would you prefer? (Hint: regardless of whether that’s a rhetorical question, I do expect a legitimate response.)
-Ben
Guadere: try http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/jericho5/
A quote from Dame Kenyon herself (note, also, altho Dame Kenyon was very respected, she died in 1958, and there have been many discoveries since) “The evidence from the 1952-58 excavations at Jericho indicates there was a late bronze town there inthe 14th century, which might have been attacked by Joshua”. Again- altho she, and others, have severly debunked the idea of there being the massive, mighty fortess city of Jericho, destroyed by Joshua, all seem to agree that there was a settlement there, which there is evidence that it could very well have been captured by Joshua. Ie, yes, the Great military victories of hundreds of thousands of Isrealites against even more powerful foes, was more likely a few thousand semi-nomadic troops cleaning out some rather decadent Canaanite & etc. Ie, as has been happening since the invention of war- the victories were exagerrated. Heck- we even did it in Desert Storm.
ben- i never said anything in Shintoism was not to be taken seriously- as an article of faith. As an article of History or Archeology, I do not accept a LOT of thing from the OT, such as a 'global flood", the ages of the patriarchs, the numbers in the early books, the literal Exodus, etc. Does that mean I do not take the judeo-Christian FAITH seriously? Of course not- so i can then, be unable to accept “historical facts” from other religions as unfounded, without disputing their basic faith. You can debate Myths & religousbookks as both articles of faith, and as historical documents. Here, we are debating the Bible as a historical document- not the Faiths derived from it.
I did not ignore anything. I have answered every single freaking question you have put to me, including off-topic & rhetorical questions. Show me one I have not answered. as soon as you confirmed you were being stubborn enuf to actual want an answer to a question that has no bearing, i did answer it. And, since Monty, for some months now, has been “officially” snubbing & ignoring me, I was unsure if his question was actually addressed to me, as I have been informed by others that to Monty “DITWD does not exist”- which is not all that mature. Rhetorical questions do not demand an answer. Or don’t you knwo what that means?
How about you answer MY question, instead of dodging it- what is YOUR opinion & stance in this debate- or are you just here to snipe my posts? Do you have ANYTHING positive, or a thought, or even an opinion AT ALL? IF you are not going to contribute anything, or answer MY questions- why should I extend the courtesy to you of answering yours?
I would prefer, that you post some of your very own opinions- instead of simply sniping mine. It appear that you have only one thought- “to disagree & pick nits with everything DITWD posts”. I ask YOU for cites , sources & quotes- and the only thing YOU have come up with is a link to an old thread, where another poster submitted a link. You do not like my second-hand authorities, but that’s about 4th hand. So, i would like YOU, yes, YOU- the poster known as Ben, to post something positive to this thread- an idea, an opinon, a thought. I would like to see some cites & quotes for the things i have asked for. You have not posted a single original quote or cite, yet- altho you have no problem with demanding the same from me, and when i do, dising them. Do you have anything at all to show that my opinions, facts or sources are wrong? Anything? And, so far, you have “pointed out” no “fallacies” of mine. You have sniped at them, and disagreed with them- but just your opinion, with no sources, quotes or cites- does not turn my postings automatically into “fallacies”- unless you think you are Cecil.
**
Again, this is just weaselling. Monty asked a question about Amaterasu. You ignored it, and later explained (quite strenuously) that you ignored it because it was a rhetorical question. But when I point out what you did, you turn around and say that you didn’t ignore anything.
**
This is simply ridiculous. Yes, rhetorical questions do not demand a literal answer. Suppose you make an argument to try to prove the existence of David, and someone asks you rhetorically whether you believe, on the same grounds, in the existence of Amaterasu.
Are they interested in an answer to the rhetorical question itself? No- because it’s rhetorical, they don’t actually want a yes or no answer to the question per se.
Is it acceptable to simply ignore their argument because it was phrased as a rhetorical question? Obviously not, or else there would be no point in asking rhetorical questions. If someone asks a rhetorical question, then what “demands” an answer is not the question, but the argument which the question was used to illustrate. Are you really so dense that you think that when people ask rhetorical questions, they are just talking to themselves? Why do you think people ask rhetorical questions, if they expect to be ignored?
**
Again, this is just asinine. I’ve explained my position before- the only position I’m trying to defend here is the position that I’m opposed to lousy argumentation. I have also asked, for purposes of my own education, for more details about your arguments. What I actually believe about King David or the Exodus is irrelevant; for all you know, I might be interrogating you about these issues precisely because I am trying to become informed enough to be able to form an educated opinion. It just so happens that you have, IMO, not done a good job of convincing me thus far.
**
Yes, I have an opinion: my opinion is that you use lousy arguments, and that getting any sort of useful information out of you is like pulling teeth. It is also my opinion that you’re trying to get me to take a stand on certain historical questions in order to give yourself an opportunity to try to attack me. You want my opinion on a historical issue? Fine: I think that Exodus, as it is described in the Bible, didn’t happen. I also think King David really existed. I believe that a local flood took place in the region of Mesopotamia, and that it gave rise to a later legend of a global flood. Are you happy now?
Oh, but I have answered your questions several times. You just didn’t like the answers; you’d much rather I were a man of vehement and ill-informed opinions. This isn’t about me, Daniel- it’s about your bad arguments. You see, I’m contributing a great deal to this conversation by keeping it clean. You might as well tell a referee that he has no right to call a penalty on you unless he’s going to try to intercept the ball.
-Ben
**
Not at all. Unlike Asimov, Opus actually cites his sources- making them firsthand. I don’t see you presenting any actual evidence that the quote I provided on Exodus was taken out of context.
**
Why should I? You haven’t really addressed the old ones yet, except to wave your arms a bit and make sweeping generalizations. Others have provided new cites to back up my assertions, but you haven’t addressed them either. Do you really think all this complaining about my “sniping” will cover up your lack of evidence?
**
First you criticise my cites- then you say they don’t exist.
You seem to be a little confused about the difference between an error of logic and an error of fact. I don’t need “sources, quotes, or cites” in order to point out the former. I have provided a few in order to back up the latter, but I admit that this is not an area of much expertise for me. I freely admit that I could be wrong about Exodus or (for that matter) King David, and I’m not prepared to argue the former with you- but I’m not going to learn a lot from “Asimov said so,” and I’m not going to refrain from pointing out obvious fallacies even when I agree with you.
-Ben
:rolleyes:
>1- but, again, once you said you wanted an answer to the rhetorical question, i did answer it. Thus, I did NOT ignore your question.
>2 When some folk do so, no- but when it is Monty, I had to assume he was not addresing the question to me- as to Monty I do not exist. Thus, the question was not directed to me, thus there is no reason to answer it.
>3 But that is not what this thread is about. You tried to start a thread about debating & arguementation- it died. It is only your opinion that MY arguements are “lousy”- when other post completely inane arguements, even here in this thread, like Montys rhetorical 7 off-topic question- did you question HIS debating style?
>4 Prove these- submit original cites by recognized experts.
>5 No- this thread is about “Historical records agreeing with holy books?” You seem to think that this thread is for you to stalk me in this & other threads & nitpick my arguements- not anyones else, nor come up with your own arguements- just me, and always me.
>6 Who died and made YOU a moderator?
Look, argue the OP, not the DITWD. If you do not start debating, and stop stalking, I will simply post :rolleyes: and nothing else in response to your attacks.
You post a link to a thread <1>, In that thread opus post a link to a cite<2>, at that site, the author quotes other folks sources<3>. I count 3.
Your “error of logic” is just your opinion, and you are wrong. You seem to think, that “arguing from authority” includes quoting a source as regards a fact. It does not. An 'arguement from authority" is when somebody quotes some experts OPINION. And, in any case, “argueing from
authority” is not nessesarily an error in “logic”. It is unaceptable in a “logical arguement”, which is quite another thing.
But- I will only debate the OP with you Ben, from now on. No more stalking, sniping, "logical arguements’ or aguements about logic. if you want to discuss the OP- fine. If not, prepare for :rolleyes: I have lost patience with you, all this argueing is completely off-topic, and is a major hijack. No more.
Danielinthewolvesden:
LMAO! Seriously, is this what you think makes a source third-hand? I suppose had he linked to the article directly, it would have only been second-hand, even though it was the exact same article? And had he posted a link to a link to a link to a link to the article, he could have turned the exact same piece of information into a fifth-hand source, and thus made it less reliable?
The idea of second and third-hand sources is only relevant when those sources might get distorted or biased. In this case, the Infidels citing of an article is second-hand, because they might have an interest in distorting what the article had to say (although you’ve yet to demonstrate this). But any further links do not decrease the validity of the information; it’s the same damn article!
Yeek! And you say infidels quotes out of context? Keynon says:
“The evidence from the 1952-8 excavations at Jericho indicate that there was a Late Bronze Age (LB) town there in the 14th century which might have been attacked by Joshua, BUT NOTHING SURVIVES TO ILLUSTRATE THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT. (my emphasis). It also suggests that if this destruction followed by 600 years of abandonment was the work of the Israelite tribes under Joshua, it is not likely to have been later than c. 1300BC which is difficult to reconcile with a flight from Egypt c. 1260 BC.” (Archaeology in the Holy Land p. 182).
It does not sound as if she thinks Joshua’s conquest is a reasonable theory, even of the later city. There is NO evidence of it–none!-- and the chronology does not resolve correctly. The site you linked to adds:
“In one fell swoop she proves the Biblical account of Joshua to be a myth, discounts both the accepted XVIIIth and XIXth dynasty theories for the origin of the Exodus, finds no evidence for the occupation of the King of Moab and nothing from the time of Ahab. Garstang’s meticulous work is all for naught.” The site goes on to speak of its own theory to explain how Joshua could have conquered a city there, but I see no evidence that Kenyon herself seriously believes this, as you claim.
Color me confused. How does this support your claim that Kenyon seriously believes Joshua’s conquest could have happened and so infidels was wrong to quote her in a manner that implies she did not believe in the accuracy of the biblical account of Joshua’s conquest of Jerico? I think, having read her statements, that she does not at all believe that Joshua conquered Jericho; there were later towns, but as she specifically mentions, the chronology doesn’t fit and there is no evidence. If she does not believe Joshua’s conquest was likely, I do not think anyone would be incorrect in citing her statements against the existence of Jericho, and not feeling required to mention a hypothesis that HAS NO EVIDENCE and does not work with the chronology. I sure as hell would not bring up a hypothesis like that in GD! 
What evidence? That there may have been a city there, yes, but I don’t think there’s any evidence of conquest.
http://www.bib-arch.org/editors_page/jericho1.html
Ze’ev Herzog at Biblical Archeological Society says, re Jericho: “Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators’ efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.
Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua was bolstered.”
Professor Magen Broshi, Archaeologist at the Israel Museum adds:
"The notion of the Conquest of the Land in the Book of Joshua is an epic, no more…Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. "
Even Herzog’s opponent does not seem to beleive in Joshua’s conquest of Jericho: “That the excavations of Jericho and Ai indicate there were no cities here at the time Joshua was supposed to have conquered them must be balanced against the fact that, according to Hebrew University archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor, Hazor was indeed most likely destroyed and burned by the incoming Israelites, just as the Bible says (Joshua 11:1-11).
Moreover, there was a destruction of Jericho that comports in extraordinary detail with the description of the Israelite conquest of the city, down to the time of year and the fallen walls. But it occurred before the supposed date of the Israelite appearance on the scene. Did the Israelites somehow later take credit for this earlier destruction of Jericho? That’s quite possible.”
So, based on the information I have found, I don’t buy that Joshua’s conquest of Jericho, even if one fiddles with the chronology, is a theory seriously accepted by most archeologists.
But if you read that quote again, it doe say there WAS a town at Jericho, at the right time to be attacked by Joshua, and that the town was destroyed- but there is no evidence of how, who or why. Infidels concludes that Joshua could not have possibly attcked jericho, as there was no Jericho there for him to attack. Dame Kenyon does say there was a town there to be attacked, and leaves open the possibility that Joshua attacked it- altho she says there is no evidence that he did. All the archeologists admit there is very poor evidence of what happened in later Jerichos. Thus, in no way does the archeological evidence clearly support the idea of a Joshua/jericho combat, but it does not rule it out either. Except, the evidence does rule out a great victory over a mighty city- which is certainly evidence, along with other info, that the victories of Joshua were exagerrated. But again- just about every military victory since the invention of war has also been exaggerated.
However, certainly the Isrealites did conquer Jericho, and Ai, etc- or at least the areas in which they were in. The evidence does clearly show that much earlier, these were not in the hands of the Isrealites, and later- they were. Could this have been more assimilation, than military conquest? Possible, but the folks back then were not very peaceful. There are, as the article points out, evidence os some Joshua victories. Like i said, rather than an army of a 100,000 conquering great cities, it more points to a much smaller army wiping out much less impressive enemies.