Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Israeli archeologists find taboo toilet at ancient Jewish shrine

  1. #31
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    30,501
    Amen (Given)
    2566
    Amen (Received)
    15112
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    First, read again, the Hills of Judea refers to a geographic region, and not a tribe. Reading comprehension a problem here?
    "Judea" actually refers to Judah, the TRIBE and SON of Israel. So the tribe had to exist for the name to exist. And if there was an actual KING then there was an actual government and society and language, etc.

    You are desperately trying and failing here Shuny. miserably. But then everyone knows you never, ever admit you are wrong. You just double down and make yourself look even more foolish.

  2. Amen Cerebrum123, Adrift, Bill the Cat, Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  3. #32
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,628
    Amen (Given)
    1002
    Amen (Received)
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    You really do not see the difference in these two statements of yours?

    A "... There is no evidence that the Hebrews were a distinct culture and society prior to ~600 BCE. ..."

    B "... the Hebrew tribes [did] not have a distinctive culture and language ]was[ prior to the period ~900 - 600 BCE.. ..."

    Aside from the obvious difference of three centuries between "~600 BCE" and "~900--600 BCE," do we really need to repeat your past failure to understand some of the basics of the Canaanite and Hebrew alphabet, scripts, and languages, none of which you even understand but nonetheless ignorantly pontificate upon?
    No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

    Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.

    Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/another-view-christopher-rollston%E2%80%99s-methodology-of-caution/


    This example raises an interesting question regarding Christopher Rollston’s methodology of caution: What is more speculative—to assume that a small Late Bronze Akkadian tablet uncovered in Jerusalem might be an Amarna-type letter (of which we have more than 300 examples) or that Khirbet Qeiyafa is associated with the name of the family of the high priest Caiaphas? Apparently, “caution” is something one may demand only from others, not from himself.

    Another aspect of Christopher Rollston’s “caution” is to not really say much. In his BAR article on the earliest Hebrew inscription, previously cited, all he can say about the four inscriptions he considers is that they are not Hebrew. Is that all that can be said about the four inscriptions from Khirbet Qeiyafa, Gezer, Tel Zayit and Izbet Zartah—that they are not definitely Hebrew? Should we now expect other articles in this same genre, in which Christopher Rollston will argue that the four inscriptions involved are not definitely Canaanite, not definitely Philistine, not definitely Phoenician, not definitely Moabite, not definitely Greek and not definitely Latin?

    In my judgment, the four inscriptions Christopher Rollston considers in his BAR article tell us about the language used by the local population at these sites during the earlier part of the Iron Age, probably an earlier phase of the Hebrew language, in which the great Biblical poems, like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1), were written.

    © Copyright Original Source



    A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-06-2016 at 09:13 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #33
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1562
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No problem, the period of ~900--600 BCE represents the period of the evolution of the Hebrew written language and culture from the Canaanite /Ugarit/Phoenician culture and language. By ~600 the language and culture evolved to be distinctly different from the antecedents. The older writings, crude inscriptions of calendars, are variable in their interpretation and strongly resemble Phoenician text. Scholars do not agree to the extent these are Hebrew. The best they could be is primitive paleo-Hebrew. The problem is there only a scant few examples before the silver scroll find.

    Differences in the interpretation of some of the scant examples of early writing clearly demonstrate the problem.

    Source: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/another-view-christopher-rollston%E2%80%99s-methodology-of-caution/


    This example raises an interesting question regarding Christopher Rollston’s methodology of caution: What is more speculative—to assume that a small Late Bronze Akkadian tablet uncovered in Jerusalem might be an Amarna-type letter (of which we have more than 300 examples) or that Khirbet Qeiyafa is associated with the name of the family of the high priest Caiaphas? Apparently, “caution” is something one may demand only from others, not from himself.

    Another aspect of Christopher Rollston’s “caution” is to not really say much. In his BAR article on the earliest Hebrew inscription, previously cited, all he can say about the four inscriptions he considers is that they are not Hebrew. Is that all that can be said about the four inscriptions from Khirbet Qeiyafa, Gezer, Tel Zayit and Izbet Zartah—that they are not definitely Hebrew? Should we now expect other articles in this same genre, in which Christopher Rollston will argue that the four inscriptions involved are not definitely Canaanite, not definitely Philistine, not definitely Phoenician, not definitely Moabite, not definitely Greek and not definitely Latin?

    In my judgment, the four inscriptions Christopher Rollston considers in his BAR article tell us about the language used by the local population at these sites during the earlier part of the Iron Age, probably an earlier phase of the Hebrew language, in which the great Biblical poems, like the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1), were written.

    © Copyright Original Source



    A clear and consistent Hebrew language widely used would be the most important sign of a distinct separate culture and scripture. The early written languages before this are at best described as transitional pcitographic paleo-Hebrew.
    It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  5. Amen Bill the Cat, Adrift, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  6. #34
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,628
    Amen (Given)
    1002
    Amen (Received)
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    It appears that you have wisely avoided repeating much of your previous ridiculous misunderstading of the Hebrew alphabets. Good. In addition to the difficulty of the sparseness of examples, do not reify distinctions like proto-Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew. The simple fact of the matter is that all languages evolve. Anyone who has studied Hebrew can easily understand Moabitic, all the more easily if they have also studied even a tiny bit of Arabic or Aramaic. And this is decidedly not pictographic, by the way. A little more reading o your source will allow you to see that although 'Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century BCE, the Hebrew language existed well before then'.
    Yes written languages evolve in all cultures, but there comes a point where the written language becomes established and changes little beyond that and the average person can read the language from that point on. Chinese is a classic example, and I can easily read written Chinese back to 1100 BCE. Actually in reading the earliest Hebrew texts the scholars are not in agreement on how to read them.

    The highlighted is a significant reason why I start the evolution of the Hebrew language to be ~900 BCE. I consider the consistent written language a more distinctive feature of and advanced culture than the spoken language. It is true spoken languages are very likely older then the written language in most cultures, and older then civilization itself.

    The scant evidence of written text is a very real issue, and the religious practices does demonstrate that before this period the Hebrews were a subculture of the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures. Trade is the dominant reason that establishes the sophistication and widespread use written language, Unlike the Ugarit/Canaanite/Phoenician cultures, the Hebrew culture was a pastoral culture mostly in the Hills of Judea prior to about ~600 - 500 BCE.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-10-2016 at 04:27 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #35
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    865
    Amen (Given)
    55
    Amen (Received)
    422
    Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here?
    Source: Bible History Daily

    During the 2012 excavations at the southern wall of the Temple Mount, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered an inscription with the earliest alphabet letters ever found in Jerusalem. The inscription—carved on a storage jar—is written in the Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the 11th or 10th century B.C.E. In “The New Jerusalem Inscription—So What?” in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, author Alan Millard provides a paleographic assessment of the inscription and explains how these earliest alphabet letters from Jerusalem can illuminate the scope of literacy during the time of David and Solomon.

    © Copyright Original Source


    I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

  8. #36
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,628
    Amen (Given)
    1002
    Amen (Received)
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Have you guys already discussed the inscription from about 1000 BC reported here?
    Source: Bible History Daily

    During the 2012 excavations at the southern wall of the Temple Mount, archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered an inscription with the earliest alphabet letters ever found in Jerusalem. The inscription—carved on a storage jar—is written in the Proto-Canaanite script and dates to the 11th or 10th century B.C.E. In “The New Jerusalem Inscription—So What?” in the May/June 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, author Alan Millard provides a paleographic assessment of the inscription and explains how these earliest alphabet letters from Jerusalem can illuminate the scope of literacy during the time of David and Solomon.

    © Copyright Original Source


    I've also met an archaeologist who thinks he has identified very early Hebrew writing on Egyptian stelle a few centuries before this, but his theories are much more controversial.
    The Proto-Canaanite is acknowledged as the origins of pre-Hebrew, but not Hebrew, and relationship with the more Dominant Ugarit/Canaanite earlier in Hebrew history.

    The Egyptian link is a stretch, and does indicate an influence of Egyptian on the later pictographic symbols in early pre-Hebrew writing.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •