The Bible's Buried Secrets part II; Atheist Myth debunked and Israel Finkelstein proven wrong.

tat tvam asi · Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:50 pm

Robert you're killng me - "spamwe" - I about fell on the floor laughing when I saw that!!!

Stahrwe, I haven't bothered with your questions because they're completely idiotic. Oh let me guess, Finkelstein who's name is Israel and lives and works in Israel as an archaeologist investigating the empirical world verses the biblical record, must not know anything about the Hebrew bible. This is just as stupid as your first attack based on questioning his findings of pottery and debris on the surface. You really are "spamwe", trollwe, Stahrweak, and variety of other variations. But obviously there's no stopping it....

stahrwe · Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:54 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: what Robert Tulip says about Israel is incorrect, at least by implication. The so called land grab was the result of three UN Resolutions, which, de facto, makes the event legal. ... Normally, land acquired in war is retained by the victor.

The article copied below refutes this idiocy that military expansion is "normal". Acquisition of territory by war is illegal under international law, and Israel was condemned by UN Security Council resolutions on this basis. I am not saying that the establishment of Israel was illegal, but that their continued imperial aggression in the Palestinian Occupied Territories is illegal. Stahrwe's effort to find Biblical support for Israeli occupation of Palestine through the embarrassing Ezekiel Code is nothing more than a flagrant propaganda tactic to ignore any moral obligation to accept rule of law. The really shameful thing is that this is all funded by the USA, whose cowardly politicians and media live in fear of Jewish propaganda.

It is totally relevant to this thread, because Stahrwe's purpose in slandering the prestigious archaeologist Israel Finkelstein is to claim a fallacious moral legitimacy for the Israeli war of expansion against Palestine.
[quote="Dr Nasser Al-Kidwa, Ambassador and Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations"]

I have attached UN Resoution 242. It does indeed denounce the acquisition of territory by means of war. My question is, 'wasn't that precisely what the countries which attacked Israel were after? Israel didn't start the hostilities. It is also true that the resolution calls on Israel to return the areas acquired as a result of the VICTORY. However, that is not the only requirement, it also requires that the countries hostile to Israel agree to recognize her soveirnty and right to exist.

stahrwe · Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:01 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: Robert you're killng me - "spamwe" - I about fell on the floor laughing when I saw that!!! Stahrwe, I haven't bothered with your questions because they're completely idiotic. Oh let me guess, Finkelstein who's name is Israel and lives and works in Israel as an archaeologist investigating the empirical world verses the biblical record, must not know anything about the Hebrew bible. This is just as stupid as your first attack based on questioning his findings of pottery and debris on the surface. You really are "spamwe", trollwe, Stahrweak, and variety of other variations. But obviously there's no stopping it....

Yes, about as funny as a brown-eyed mullet and twice as clever.

What you fail to realize, or don't is that Finkelstein is writing a book about a subject which he holds himself forth as an expert on. In the case of page 7, it is not a mistak, Finkelstein intended to list the Bible books the way he did, but he should have included an explanation that he was using the Christian divisions instead of the Jewish.

Robert Tulip · Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:27 pm


	Spamwe wrote: I know you think you are cute by modifying my username and maybe you are but you are not being clever and you are being decidedly immature. All of that is fine with me and if you choose to continue doing so that is okay as we (in the US) generally grew out of those games, by the age of 16 or so. That being said, I need to correct you again; When you enclose something in quotation marks, that means you are accurately reproducing what the person you are quoting said, or in this case wrote; and you are not. I suggest that you revisit my post and follow that up with a retraction of the above accusation as falsely attributing words to someone can be construed as defammation. I await your apology.

I must sincerely apologise for misquoting Spamwe, and for immaturely calling him Spamwe because he spams the board with creationist propaganda. If only we could all be as mature as Spamwe.

Here is the source of my contraction "fool who makes wild ass guesses".


	Spamwe wrote: Finkelstein ended up looking like a fool. He claimed that his evidence came from dating pieces of pottery his students picked up off the ground, no digging just reach down. That seemed pretty bogus to me. After 3,000 years the pottery is just sitting there waiting to be picked up. Plus isn't dating of pottery usually done by dating the strata it is found in. Anyway, Finkedlsteins conclusions were more in the nature of WAGS then looking at the evidence objectively.

I should, to be entirely accurate, have written "fool ... [who makes] wild ass guesses". Stahrwe did not use the actual words "who makes", that is entirely my error and interpolation, although that is what he meant. I will just have to stop seeing things that aren't there. I am so sorry.

How good am I at faking sincerity?

Vishnu · Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:25 pm

^Not very. But I attribute that to you being out of your element, you know, being so accustomed to honesty, rationality, logic, etc.

tat tvam asi · Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:59 pm

Spamwe, of course Finkelstein listed the books of the OT as such because throughout his book he is largely addressing the Judeo-Christian world. This is very much done on purpose and he is very much an expert on these matters. The whole point is to address the bible and he's presented the bible in terms of how it's viewed in the Judeo-Christian world today. But once again you've taken off on a wild goose chase looking for some little point somewhere which you can use to devise a strawman, as usual. And it's pathetic and revealing in terms of broadcasting to the world just how desperate you and people like you are to try and undermine Finkelstein and many other great minds of our generation.

Azrael · Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:44 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: Spamwe, of course Finkelstein listed the books of the OT as such because throughout his book he is largely addressing the Judeo-Christian world. This is very much done on purpose and he is very much an expert on these matters. The whole point is to address the bible and he's presented the bible in terms of how it's viewed in the Judeo-Christian world today. But once again you've taken off on a wild goose chase looking for some little point somewhere which you can use to devise a strawman, as usual. And it's pathetic and revealing in terms of broadcasting to the world just how desperate you and people like you are to try and undermine Finkelstein and many other great minds of our generation.

Apparently there is no babble scripture for logic and reason that's obvious from Spamwe's post.


	Quote: And it's pathetic and revealing in terms of broadcasting to the world just how desperate you and people like you are to try and undermine Finkelstein and many other great minds of our generation.

This is an attempt by them to cover up the real truth.

stahrwe · Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:18 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: Spamwe, of course Finkelstein listed the books of the OT as such because throughout his book he is largely addressing the Judeo-Christian world. This is very much done on purpose and he is very much an expert on these matters. The whole point is to address the bible and he's presented the bible in terms of how it's viewed in the Judeo-Christian world today. But once again you've taken off on a wild goose chase looking for some little point somewhere which you can use to devise a strawman, as usual. And it's pathetic and revealing in terms of broadcasting to the world just how desperate you and people like you are to try and undermine Finkelstein and many other great minds of our generation.

Your point might slip by if it was from anyone other than you. But with your background you should know the books of the Bible.

Finkelstein did two things which negate your argument.

1) He labeled Figure 1 as the Books of the Hebrew Bible. The books he listed are not the books of the Hebrew Bible. There are only 24 of them not 39.

2) He modified the order of appearance of the books to that of the Hebrew Bible, at least as closely as he could given that he has the wrong names.

What he should have done is what many books I have did and list the Hebrew names and order but have footnotes explaining how the 24 became 39. It was a pretty simple fix.

Robert Tulip · Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:07 pm

'Hebrew Bible' is commonly used by scholars instead of Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible says the Hebrew Bible had 39 books. Stahrwe is talking about the Tanakh which traditionally had 24 books.

tat tvam asi · Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:25 pm

"Spamwe is as Spamwe does." - Spamwe Gump

stahrwe · Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:02 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: 'Hebrew Bible' is commonly used by scholars instead of Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible says the Hebrew Bible had 39 books. Stahrwe is talking about the Tanakh which traditionally had 24 books.

More people than Robert are confused if Wikipedia says that.
But it also says;


	Quote: The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Latin Biblia Hebraica) is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Jewish Bible (Hebrew: תנ"ך‎ Tanakh). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

this is the same url that Robert Tulip provided. The Hebrew Bible is the Jewish Bible is the Tanakh. Robert is drawing a difference here where there isn't one.


	Quote: Judaism 101 A Glossary of Basic Jewish Terms and Concepts TANAKH "TANAKH" - an Acronym, based on the letters T (for "Torah"), N (for "Neviim," the Prophets), and K (for "Ketuvim," the Sacred Writings). It is the compendium of the teachings of G-d to human beings in document form. How does G-d teach Man? In the Torah, He did it by direct communication with Moshe, the "Master of the Prophets," whereby Moshe literally received "dictation from Heaven" for every word of the Torah. In the "Neviim," HaShem "spoke," as it were, with the great and holy Prophets and Prophetesses of the Jewish People, and His Messages were transmitted by them to the Jewish People, for the most part, and sometimes to other nations. In the Sacred Writings, great individuals were inspired by "Ruach HaKodesh," the Holy Spirit, to produce great and holy works. The composition of the "TANAKH" was determined by the "Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah," the Men of the Great Assembly, under the influence of the "Holy Spirit." It consists of twenty-four "Books," where first and second volumes of one work are counted as one, and where all the twelve "Books" of the "Trei Asar," the Twelve Prophets, are also considered as one. The twenty-four "Books" are as follows: 1-5: The Five Books of Moses: • Bereshit, or Genesis • Shemot, or Exodus • VaYikra, or Leviticus • BaMidbar, or Numbers • Devarim, or Deuteronomy. 6-9: The "Neviim Rishonim," the Early Prophets: • Yehoshua • "Shoftim"/Judges • Shmuel I and II • "Melachim"/Kings I and II 10-13: The "Neviim Acharonim," the Later Prophets: • Yeshayahu • Yirmiyahu • Yechezkel • "Trei Asar": Books and Prophets within "Trei Asar": Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Ovadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Chavakuk, Tzefaniah, Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi 14-16: The "Sifrei Emet," "Books of Truth": • "Tehilim"/Psalms • "Mishlei"/Proverbs • "Iyov"/Job 17-21: The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls": • "Shir HaShirim"/Song of Songs • Ruth • "Eichah"/Lamentations • "Kohelet"/Ecclesiastes • Esther 22-24: The "Other Writings": • Daniel • Ezra-Nechemiah • "Divrei HaYamim"/Chronicles I and II http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/tanakh.htm

Robert Tulip · Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:29 pm


	Quote: More people than Robert are confused if Wikipedia says that.

Mere mistaken pedantry. Stahrwe's straw man has collapsed to leave him clutching at this foolish reed of how many books there are in the Bible.


	stahrwe wrote: Finkelstein ... labeled Figure 1 as the Books of the Hebrew Bible. The books he listed are not the books of the Hebrew Bible. There are only 24 of them not 39..

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible says "The 24 texts of the Hebrew Bible are divided into 39 books in Christian Old Testaments". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B ... brew_Bible says "For the purposes of Wikipedia categories, Hebrew Bible refers only to those books in the Jewish Tanakh, which is the same as the Protestant Old Testament."

Finkelstein's notorious page 7 is called "Books of the Hebrew Bible" in complete conformity with scholarly practice. All these 39 books are in the Tanakh, it is just that some of them are conventionally put together by Judaism. Stahrwe is using the fact that Jews group these 39 books into 24 "texts", sometimes also called books, to suggest an error where there is none. Big point.

I hope Stahrwe actually read the link I provided earlier to a scholarly archaeological text that shows that you can find out a lot about the past by systematically collecting things from the surface, the method used in this case by Finkelstein. This thread might be better titled "The Education of Young Spamwe".

Oh, and did Stahrwe notice, (does he even read what he posts himself?), The Hebrew Bible lists as Books and Prophets within "Trei Asar": Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Ovadiah, Yonah, Michah, Nachum, Chavakuk, Tzefaniah, Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi" and groupings of Kings and Chronicles? These combine to make Finkelstein's list exactly the same as the Tanakh. I look forward to hearing Don Quixote Spamwe tell Wikipedia that Amos and Hosea are not books in the Hebrew Bible because Finkelstein's archaeology does not support Zionist fundamentalism. Good luck tilting at windmills. Tell us how you go.

Forum rules

The Bible's Buried Secrets part II; Atheist Myth debunked and Israel Finkelstein proven wrong. Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!