100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: FACT SHEET: 45 YEARS OF OCCUPATION | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Clearly, I am wasting my time for you have no background in the discipline, it's not your fault, or a flaw, it's just the way it is.
OMG. 
I don't really care about how historians glean their information. I have made a claim. You can call it an opinion if you want to, it doesn't hurt my feelings. Everything you say is also YOUR opinion. Everything is basically an opinion. Big deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually there does seem to be some archeological evidence for the Kingdom of David - it was a long time ago ~ 1000 years before Christ. Archaeological evidence Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele The Tel Dan Stele. Main articles: Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".[3] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel",[4] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.[5][6] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).[7] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."[8] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.[9] Wishful thinking on their part. Not enough evidence for such a supposedly great Kingdom. "Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable." Flimsy at best... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 06/09/12 07:15 PM
|
|
You do know that there is such a thing as actual factual history...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came. Despite the Jewish community in Jerusalem appealing to the Byzantine Emperor Constans II for military aid owing to the Arab invasions of the 7th cent. A.D.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came. Despite the Jewish community in Jerusalem appealing to the Byzantine Emperor Constans II for military aid owing to the Arab invasions of the 7th cent. A.D.. So has the "Messiah come?" They seem to be gathering there now. Where is this Messiah?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OMG.
I don't really care about how historians glean their information. I noticed. I have made a claim. You can call it an opinion if you want to, it doesn't hurt my feelings.
It wasn't intended to hurt your feelings, I'm sorry you feel that way. Everything you say is also YOUR opinion.
Based on 15 years of accredited study in the field. Everything is basically an opinion. Big deal
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came.
Despite the Jewish community in Jerusalem appealing to the Byzantine Emperor Constans II for military aid owing to the Arab invasions of the 7th cent. A.D.. So has the "Messiah come?" They seem to be gathering there now. Where is this Messiah?
I'll leave that for those who believe in metaphysical and spiritual abstractions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. Yes I see that. You don't say it is not true, and you don't say that it is true. So what's the point of saying anything? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. Yes I see that. You don't say it is not true, and you don't say that it is true. So what's the point of saying anything? I'm not the one stating they didn't exist to further my argument, am I? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. Yes I see that. You don't say it is not true, and you don't say that it is true. So what's the point of saying anything? I'm not the one stating they didn't exist to further my argument, am I? No, you are not. I am. And yes, that is my opinion. If you do not believe they existed or you do not know one way or another, then you have no reason to even discuss the subject. And I don't feel it is my responsibility to prove something or someone did not exist. I am looking for someone who is willing to claim that they did exist and then present their reasons and evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg
Where is this so-called "hard evidence?" A link to a cheesy website with commercial ads blinking all over the place? I'm supposed to take that seriously? That's laughable. So where and what is the "hard evidence" that they "may have" been owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon?" ("May Have...")
Yeh, like King David "may have" existed. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg
Where is this so-called "hard evidence?" A link to a cheesy website with commercial ads blinking all over the place? I'm supposed to take that seriously? That's laughable. So where and what is the "hard evidence" that they "may have" been owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon?" ("May Have...")
Yeh, like King David "may have" existed. I don't think so. This information exists on many websites and there was a great PBS study done. Too bad you don't have any investigative skills or you would have picked right up on it. There is a wealth of Carbon 14 dating also but that would deal with facts, not opinions, and would, in fact, prove your opinions wrong. Please don't get the impression I expected you to learn anything.  This is, after all, science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Optomistic69
on
Sun 06/10/12 03:03 AM
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg “Countering official Zionist historiography, Shlomo Sand questions whether the Jewish People ever existed as a national group with a common origin in the Land of Israel/Palestine. He concludes that the Jews should be seen as a religious community comprising a mishmash of individuals and groups that had converted to the ancient monotheistic religion but do not have any historical right to establish an independent Jewish state in the Holy Land. In short, the Jewish People, according to Sand, are not really a “people” in the sense of having a common ethnic origin and national heritage. They certainly do not have a political claim over the territory that today constitutes Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 06/10/12 05:54 AM
|
|
Sure, just because the Jews founded the original state of Israel
and had their religious center the Temple on the Temple mount in Jerusalem, pray facing Jerusalem, and are arguably one of the most documented and studied societies of antiquity...
Add that Jews have always lived in Israel continuously since its inception, founded Hebron, buried all their ancestors there and tended their tombs... And Israel was the only country in the world who welcomed refugees from brutal genocidal mass killings in Russia, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, S. America etc. without any reservation or quotas giving them one place of security and freedom. What an idiot. Sand.
See the Arch of Titus... The Arch of Titus is a 1st-century honorific arch[1] located on the Via Sacra, Rome, just to the south-east of the Roman Forum. It was constructed in c.82 AD by the Roman Emperor Domitian shortly after the death of his older brother Titus to commemorate Titus' victories, including the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everything, no. I think you feel I'm being argumentative for the sake of it. That is not true. I'm relating how we assess evidence in ancient history when there is (as is often the case) a lack of physical evidence. Yes I see that. You don't say it is not true, and you don't say that it is true. So what's the point of saying anything? And I ask myself the same question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 06/10/12 09:12 AM
|
|
They did exist and there is considerable hard evidence. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128149#.T9QI6ZgoGzg
Where is this so-called "hard evidence?" A link to a cheesy website with commercial ads blinking all over the place? I'm supposed to take that seriously? That's laughable. So where and what is the "hard evidence" that they "may have" been owned and operated by the biblical King Solomon?" ("May Have...")
Yeh, like King David "may have" existed. I don't think so. This information exists on many websites and there was a great PBS study done. Too bad you don't have any investigative skills or you would have picked right up on it. There is a wealth of Carbon 14 dating also but that would deal with facts, not opinions, and would, in fact, prove your opinions wrong. Please don't get the impression I expected you to learn anything. This is, after all, science.
Please don't get the impression that finding an old copper mine, carbon dated or not, proves that King David or King Solomon were anything but fictional characters. Fictional characters are and have been invented around historical events and places all the time, especially when the authors are trying to convince people that their fiction is truth. No, its not science. The European Jews and religious fanatics have been desperately dredging up artifacts that they might be able to claim are part of the fiction of the Bible for a long time. I am seriously willing to change my belief in this area if anyone has some credible evidence that comes from credible unbiased people. Someone besides European Jews or the Catholic Church. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 06/10/12 09:43 AM
|
|
Sure, just because the Jews founded the original state of Israel and had their religious center the Temple on the Temple mount in Jerusalem, pray facing Jerusalem, and are arguably one of the most documented and studied societies of antiquity...
Add that Jews have always lived in Israel continuously since its inception, founded Hebron, buried all their ancestors there and tended their tombs... And Israel was the only country in the world who welcomed refugees from brutal genocidal mass killings in Russia, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, S. America etc. without any reservation or quotas giving them one place of security and freedom. What an idiot. Sand.
See the Arch of Titus... The Arch of Titus is a 1st-century honorific arch[1] located on the Via Sacra, Rome, just to the south-east of the Roman Forum. It was constructed in c.82 AD by the Roman Emperor Domitian shortly after the death of his older brother Titus to commemorate Titus' victories, including the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus None of that is accurate because the term "Jew" and what it has come to mean in this century is not the same thing. When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". A Judean was one who was born in the ancient independent and separate kingdom of Judea, a person loyal to the king of Judea, an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judea, and/or one having citizenship rights in the kingdom of Judea. It had nothing to do with any cult or religion. However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Optomistic69
on
Sun 06/10/12 09:50 AM
|
|
APARTHEID ANALOGY
The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Over the entirety of its 64-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to the start of the occupation in 1967, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, not unlike Palestinians in the occupied territories have been for the past 45 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually there does seem to be some archeological evidence for the Kingdom of David - it was a long time ago ~ 1000 years before Christ. Archaeological evidence Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele The Tel Dan Stele. Main articles: Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".[3] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel",[4] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.[5][6] The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).[7] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."[8] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.[9] Lack of Sure Evidence that David Existed Much vaunted as the clearest reference to David is in the ninth century BC Tel Dan inscription found in fragments of a monument in 1993 by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. The strata in which it was found, needless to say, has been the subject of dispute. Information about the place of discovery of the first Tel Dan fragment is contradictory. Was it part of a wall or part of the adjacent pavement?—important information for dating, since the pavement seems to be older than the wall. Written in Aramaic, the find seems to be a victory stele celebrating the victory of an Aramean king over Judah and Israel. J J Bimson says: We can now be fairly certain that the inscription gives a propagandistic account of the defeat of Jehoram (king of Israel) and Ahaziah (king of Judah) at Ramoth Gilead and their subsequent deaths. |
|
|
|
|
