Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Wealth and salvation in Mark 10.17-22

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Offering clarification.
    Well, as you love to say, then why didn't you say so in the first place? I'd agree that textual criticism isn't a "hard science" in the same way that physics is. But then, many physicists follow the lead of Ernest Rutherford who supposedly said "All the science is either physics or stamp collecting" and have undisguised contempt for other scientific disciplines. And some mathematicians even make fun of physicists.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And? In what regard? Nor am I entirely convinced he is qualified to comment on history as a discipline.
    The news of this will undoubtedly shake his world to its very foundations. I expect he'll be put on a suicide watch

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Your use of "quite regularly" also suggests he has written other works making the same points.
    I don't know if he covers that in some of his other books not having read them, but he's done numerous interviews.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Why? Unless you wish to attempt to impress.
    This repeated accusation is incredibly ironic given how you tried to pass yourself off as an academic historian, something I see that you dropped.

    Projection is a real thing.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Nor is the opinion of one individual established fact.
    Unless you're the one making it, am I right?

    You routinely hand wave off those who are experts in a field in favor of your own (usually evidence-free) speculations.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Although as demonstrated above you like to cite one person's opinion and then attempt to argue it offers unquestionable proof.
    There's that projection thingy again.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Hard science attempts to disprove its hypotheses If the hypothesis holds, then science may assume that it is correct. Should new evidence arise, then the whole thing gets reassessed.
    That's pretty standard and hardly relevant to what I said.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Another observation on Ph.D research areas is that one ends up knowing a great deal about not very much.
    An argument in favor of generalists with knowledge in several related fields.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    If you were a patient it is nothing to be ashamed of rogue. We know from the last two years that mental health issues are on the rise.
    It was a joke

    Going further with it I like to say that no mental hospital would ever take me because I'd mess up their curve.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Perhaps you never did.
    I have conversations with the voices in my head not with imaginary people. The secret is to assign them to various committees and let the resulting bureaucracy and let it tie them up. Although the few with good voices I organize into acapella groups like barber shop quartets and let them compete against each other.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    ​​​​​​​Odd that you cannot remember how you became acquainted with these individuals. Perhaps it is your short term memory problem reappearing.
    It was a wild period of my life. More than one person just seemed to become a part of it without me being sure exactly how.

    Seriously, he was a friend of a friend that would occasionally be around.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    However, you have yet to produce from your Mary Poppins bag of Ph.Ds a biblical textual critic of your acquaintance. Perhaps one will come along in the future.
    Sitting around alone and lonely, abandoned by friends and family, has made you very bitter.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Well, as you love to say, then why didn't you say so in the first place?
      I assumed that my interlocutor had some basic understanding and that what I wrote was self evident.

      My sincere apologies for over-estimating you.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I'd agree that textual criticism isn't a "hard science" in the same way that physics is
      Textual criticism is not a science.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I don't know if he covers that in some of his other books not having read them, but he's done numerous interviews.
      Can you cite the specific articles?

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      This repeated accusation is incredibly ironic given how you tried to pass yourself off as an academic historian, something I see that you dropped.
      I see no need to refer to my qualifications. Nor do I feel the need to reference all those Ph.Ds of my acquaintance

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Unless you're the one making it, am I right?
      I have never presented my opinions as established facts.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      You routinely hand wave off those who are experts in a field in favor of your own (usually evidence-free) speculations.
      I also regularly cite academic works in support of my contentions,.

      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      There's that projection thingy again.
      You have done this repeatedly. You find an author whose work impresses you or who takes a similar view to your own, and for you that individual becomes the definitive authority on the subject.

      You did it with Yadin on Masada. You tried to do it with DiPrizio on the history of the Middle East. You attempted it with Kennedy [a chemist] and his article from Skeptic with his references to Keeley’s opinions. You tried it with Loke’s work on the Resurrection and again with Licona and his comments on the gospels containing elements of Graeco-Roman biography.

      [QUOTE=rogue06;n1343071An argument in favor of generalists with knowledge in several related fields.[/quote] Or conversely:

      "A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        I assumed that my interlocutor had some basic understanding and that what I wrote was self evident.

        My sincere apologies for over-estimating you.
        No.

        You first claimed it wasn't science or scientific, then later you changed that to that it isn't a hard science. Those are not the same thing. Only someone ignorant of that would now claim that others should intuitively realized that you meant something different.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Textual criticism is not a science.
        Do you mean that it is not a hard science or are you returning to your original position?

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        I see no need to refer to my lack of any qualifications.
        FIFY

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Nor do I feel the need to reference all those Ph.Ds of my acquaintance
        Nor do I. Just the ones that are pertinent to a discussion.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You have done this repeatedly. You find an author whose work impresses you or who takes a similar view to your own, and for you that individual becomes the definitive authority on the subject.
        When I have presented someone as being a leading expert it is because they are regarded as such.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You did it with Yadin on Masada.
        He was the man that for nearly three decades Israel turned to when they needed someone to lead most of their important archaeological projects. This is someone who's doctoral thesis in 1956 earned him Israel's highest cultural award (The Israel Prize), and by 1964 was elected a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, followed over the next two years with becoming a membre correspondant of the Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He was also a Visiting Professor at Brown University as well as at Harvard and held a number of lectureships at various institutions in the United States.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You tried to do it with DiPrizio on the history of the Middle East.
        In his case you kept summarily dismissing him first claiming he was only interested in modern warfare and knew nothing of Masada, when that was shown to be false, you actually tried to still hand wave him off based on the fact that his pertinent work was a single volume. I never held him up as a leading expert but rather as a regular expert -- someone qualified to speak on the matter at hand.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You attempted it with Kennedy [a chemist] and his article from Skeptic with his references to Keeley’s opinions.
        Wrong. I initially cited the article to support something Sparko had said and I don't recall touting Kennedy's qualifications at all. It wasn't until later in the discussion that I started pushing the article because you claimed to have it which I figured was highly unlikely. An article published in a relatively obscure magazine from a decade earlier you just happened to have.

        So, in short, I was enjoying watching you scamper about avoiding discussing the article that you pretended was in your possession.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        You tried it with Loke’s work on the Resurrection
        Wrong again. I cited his work as being incredibly thorough. You were the one to bring up his qualifications -- which, IIRC, you said were pretty good.

        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        and again with Licona and his comments on the gospels containing elements of Graeco-Roman biography.
        I have cited the influence he has had, although I guess that in a way would make him a leading expert.
        Last edited by rogue06; 01-17-2022, 11:58 AM.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Relevant sections of previous posts only.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Palaeontology is a science. Biblical criticism is not. The theories concerning the gospels having elements of Graeco-Roman biography are the opinions of various academics, they are not established fact.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Wrong again. Textual criticism is regarded as both a science and as somewhat of an art as well. Really no different than such "sciences" as sociology, economics, political science, psychiatry and psychology.
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Not in the sense of a "hard" science. That scientific techniques and developments are employed does not make the discipline itself a "science". Historians likewise utilise a variety of scientific methods but the discipline of history and historical research are not generally considered to be "science".
          The latest comment

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          No.

          You first claimed it wasn't science or scientific, then later you changed that to that it isn't a hard science. Those are not the same thing. Only someone ignorant of that would now claim that others should intuitively realized that you meant something different.



          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          When I have presented someone as being a leading expert it is because they are regarded as such.
          He was the man that for nearly three decades Israel turned to when they needed someone to lead most of their important archaeological projects. This is someone who's doctoral thesis in 1956 earned him Israel's highest cultural award (The Israel Prize), and by 1964 was elected a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, followed over the next two years with becoming a membre correspondant of the Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He was also a Visiting Professor at Brown University as well as at Harvard and held a number of lectureships at various institutions in the United States.
          Thank you for proving my point.

          As for DiPrizio's short thumbnail text. I state again that the very short piece on Masada, which runs to around 1500 words, was written by Richard M Edwards who appears in the book's list of contributors as a Senior Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin colleges and who teaches philosophy and religious studies.

          In other words Mr Edwards is neither an archaeologist nor a military historian of the Roman army. Yet you considered that his very brief article was [and I quote]:

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars.


          As I noted at the time you clearly consider that an article of around 1500 words by a non-specialist on one particular mopping up incident "covers the Roman-Jewish wars".

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Wrong. I initially cited the article to support something Sparko had said and I don't recall touting Kennedy's qualifications at all. It wasn't until later in the discussion that I started pushing the article because you claimed to have it which I figured was highly unlikely. An article published in a relatively obscure magazine from a decade earlier you just happened to have.
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Frank's article is largely a review of the archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley's research that he published in War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. In it Keeley shows that peaceful societies are a rare exception and that nearly 95% of them are warlike or regularly go to war. Of the fraction that doesn't, they tend to fall into two groups: isolated nomadic groups (who also have the option of flight) and defeated refugees.

          The attrition rate of the close-quarters combat that is the feature of tribal warfare whether ancient or modern, results in much higher (up to 60 times![1]) casualty rates that what we see today. And it doesn't matter if you base your calculations on the total deaths due to war or as the average deaths per year from war as a percent of the total population
          And I cited another anthropologist that did not share Keeley's opinions, his comments were ignored by you.

          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          From chapter 5 in Douglas Fry's 2009 Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace [OUP]

          After reviewing the archaeological evidence on prehistoric homicides and warfare, Lawrence Keeley reaches the conclusion "that homicide has been practiced since the appearance of modern humankind and that warfare is documented in the archaeological record of the past 10,000 years in every well-studied region." I would not be surprised if occasional homicides occurred long before the emergence of modern humans. In fact, Marilyn Roper's review of published sources suggests that homicides did occur even before modern humans arrived on the scene some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. [...] Keith Otterbein points out that Keeley, under the heading "Prehistoric War," includes archaeological instances of homicide and "violent death" [a rather ambiguous term] along with the evidence for warfare. In other words, many The Earliest Evidence of War of the examples Keeley mentions under the label "Prehistoric War" actually do not pertain to war at all. Otterbein criticizes Keeley for surreptitiously shifting concepts: "I object to sliding from Violent death' in the Paleolithic to 'warfare' in the Late Paleolithic without comment upon his changing use of terminology." Furthermore, pertaining to the same section of Keeley's book, Raymond Kelly questions Keeley's assertion that certain European mass burials were probably the result of war. "In winter there is no inducement to prompt burial, especially during a time of general illness and famine. . . . Multiple burials should not be interpreted as evidence of war unless skeletal indications of trauma or proximate projectile points support this."

          In sum, Keeley intermingles archaeological examples of individual homicides, sometimes ambiguous cases of "violent death," and perhaps even nonviolent deaths due to starvation and disease with the archaeological examples of warfare, all under the heading "Prehistoric War." This creates an impression that there is more and older evidence for warfare than actually exists. However, despite this unfortunate exaggeration of warfare—and this is really the crucial point—Keeley finds no solid evidence of warfare, anywhere in the world, older than about 10,000 years before the present [BP in archaeological lingo]
          .


          All you did was pick up on my edited quote where I commented that you had referred to Keeley as an archaeologist and I pointed out he was described as an anthropologist. That contention became the topic of your later replies.

          As to Kennedy's article in Skeptic, Vol 9, 2001,he notes "for 30,000 years. Evidence for a massacre excavated in “Cave 7” in Utah, for example, tells a typical story. It includes the remains of 97 violently killed individuals. The original description records “six [skeletons that] had stone spear heads in them…several breast bones [were] shot through with arrows and many broken heads and arms.”LeBlanc described the analysis as showing that the site had the look of a “classic…tribal-level massacre. Individuals of all ages and both sexes were killed, and individuals were shot with atlatl darts, stabbed, and bludgeoned, suggesting that fighting was at close quarters....”[from para 1 p.57]

          This article http://westerndigs.org/skeletons-in-...ar-study-says/ from 2013 [i.e. 12 years after Kennedy' Skeptic article] offers a different interpretation from the one presented in Kennedy's article.

          Again on page 55 [para 1] Kennedy refers to Keeley's conclusions concerning "defensive ditch-and-palisade structures in Neolithic Britain have been interpreted as a symbol for a kind of fastidious social exclusionism," and fails to point out that this again falls within Fry's 10,000 years. Kennedy continues on p.57 paragraph 2 referring to LeBlanc's description of "the mounting evidence of prehistoric cannibalism in the American Southwest that emerges from the study of kitchen middens containing butchered human bones." Kennedy refers to the "evidence for this activity" to include “broken and burned bones; cut marks on the bone; bones broken for the marrow; bones broken to a length that would fit in a cooking jar—such bones have actually been found in jars…and polish on the tips of bones from rubbing against the interior of a vessel during [boiling].”

          However, no explanation was offered as to why cannibalism was being practised in the mid twelfth century CE in that part of SW America. Again note the date.

          All of the examples given in Kennedy's article are from later human societies.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Wrong again. I cited his work as being incredibly thorough. You were the one to bring up his qualifications -- which, IIRC, you said were pretty good.
          That does not render his work the definitive comment which [as with your original comments on another thread concerning Yadin] must not be challenged or criticised.

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I have cited the influence he has had, although I guess that in a way would make him a leading expert.
          That is a matter of opinion.
          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-18-2022, 05:24 AM.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • This thread used to be about a really bad interpretation of a Scripture passage.

            Just sayin.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Correction to comments on Edwards' article on Masada. I grossly overestimated the length of the article.

              I have just looked at it again and it runs to around 400 words - excluding the caption under a photograph.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Correction to comments on Edwards' article on Masada. I grossly overestimated the length of the article.

                I have just looked at it again and it runs to around 400 words - excluding the caption under a photograph.
                You've been correcting yourself a lot lately. That's both honorable and troubling.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                  You've been correcting yourself a lot lately. That's both honorable and troubling.
                  I should have checked the article first. Memory played tricks and I honestly thought it was longer than it was. Looking at it again it amounts to two paragraphs - and a photograph.

                  However, we know that for rogue06 the brief article by Edwards is deemed sufficient because "All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars."
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    I should have checked the article first. Memory played tricks and I honestly thought it was longer than it was. Looking at it again it amounts to two paragraphs - and a photograph.
                    We all make misteaks.

                    However, we know that for rogue06 the brief article by Edwards' is deemed sufficient because "All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars."
                    AH, so this wasn't just a self-correction -- it was a dig at Rogue!
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                      We all make misteaks.



                      AH, so this wasn't just a self-correction -- it was a dig at Rogue!
                      It was a correction concerning my initial comment that the article contained around 1500 words when in point of fact it comprises about 400.

                      However, despite its brevity rogue06 considers that article sufficiently "covers the Roman-Jewish wars". Make of that what you will!
                      Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-18-2022, 08:36 AM.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Relevant sections of previous posts only.
                        Not sure what the point of that was aside from clearly demonstrating how you went from claiming it wasn't a science to rapidly moving the goal posts to a claim that "Not in the sense of a "hard" science."

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Thank you for proving my point.
                        If your point was that you regularly dismiss folks who are regarded as among the world's leading authorities if they dare disagree with the great H_A, then sure.

                        You know, most scientists aren't awarded their country's highest cultural award for their doctoral thesis and then named to their Academy of Science a few years later. Of course you could dismiss that by saying Israel is a small country or some similar nonsense but that won't account for other countries giving similar recognition immediately afterwards (becoming a membre correspondant of the Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy). That's the sort of international recognition that most scientists can only dream of. And I'll add being made a Visiting Professor at two prestigious Ivy League Schools here in the U.S. is no small honor (for clarifications sake Harvard is typically equated with Cambridge)

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        As for DiPrizio's short thumbnail text.
                        Thank you for confirming here that your principle objection to him (after your other lame excuses collapsed) is that his book constituted a single volume.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        As I noted at the time you clearly consider that an article of around 1500 words by a non-specialist on one particular mopping up incident "covers the Roman-Jewish wars".
                        Given your initial (false) claim was that he was only interested in modern warfare that observation seemed necessary.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        And I cited another anthropologist that did not share Keeley's opinions, his comments were ignored by you.
                        Good for you. As I indicated my interest was in exposing you for your false claim that you had that 10 year old article from Skeptic magazine was B.S. -- and I'm about to do so yet again

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        All you did was pick up on my edited quote where I commented that you had referred to Keeley as an archaeologist and I pointed out he was described as an anthropologist. That contention became the topic of your later replies.
                        He was listed as both

                        but you had a problem (and apparently still do) with that because it didn't fit your narrative.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        As to Kennedy's article in Skeptic, Vol 9, 2001,he notes "for 30,000 years. Evidence for a massacre excavated in “Cave 7” in Utah, for example, tells a typical story. It includes the remains of 97 violently killed individuals. The original description records “six [skeletons that] had stone spear heads in them…several breast bones [were] shot through with arrows and many broken heads and arms.”LeBlanc described the analysis as showing that the site had the look of a “classic…tribal-level massacre. Individuals of all ages and both sexes were killed, and individuals were shot with atlatl darts, stabbed, and bludgeoned, suggesting that fighting was at close quarters....”[from para 1 p.57]
                        Fraud.

                        [*picks up copy of Skeptic, Vol 9 No.1, 2001 which I still have sitting by my computer*]
                        First, anyone copying that information from the magazine would be hard-pressed to miss "No.1"

                        Second, the author of the piece is Patrick Frank, not Kennedy. Again, something hard to miss for someone with a copy.

                        Third, I'll assume by "Kennedy" you meant Lawrence H. Keeley, given that the article was mostly a review of his book.

                        Fourth, and perhaps more importantly, the paragraph you represent as being the first one on page 57 is actually comprised of two separate paragraphs.

                        So it looks like you were finally able to find a copy (did you have to order it?), but that it was formatted differently.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        This article http://westerndigs.org/skeletons-in-...ar-study-says/ from 2013 [i.e. 12 years after Kennedy' Skeptic article]
                        Do you mean Patrick Frank?

                        I cannot even find a Kennedy mentioned in the article, or mentioned in the references.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        offers a different interpretation from the one presented in Kennedy's article.
                        Frank's

                        I should also note that while there will always be disagreement, Keeley's work has been received very positively by the archaeological community with several building on his work.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Again on page 55 [para 1] Kennedy refers to Keeley's conclusions concerning "defensive ditch-and-palisade structures in Neolithic Britain have been interpreted as a symbol for a kind of fastidious social exclusionism," and fails to point out that this again falls within Fry's 10,000 years. Kennedy continues on p.57 paragraph 2 referring to LeBlanc's description of "the mounting evidence of prehistoric cannibalism in the American Southwest that emerges from the study of kitchen middens containing butchered human bones." Kennedy refers to the "evidence for this activity" to include “broken and burned bones; cut marks on the bone; bones broken for the marrow; bones broken to a length that would fit in a cooking jar—such bones have actually been found in jars…and polish on the tips of bones from rubbing against the interior of a vessel during [boiling].”
                        Now I see what's going on. You still haven't read Frank's article itself but are instead relying on a critique of it which quotes portions. That would certainly explain the errors and omissions

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        All of the examples given in Kennedy's article are from later human societies.
                        You mean Keeley

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        That does not render his work the definitive comment which [as with your original comments on another thread concerning Yadin] must not be challenged or criticised.
                        Absolutely nobody is saying that anyone's work is beyond being challenged or criticized.

                        OTOH, those with expertise in an area are probably more informed than a faux historian hausfrau who typically dismisses others without bothering to refute what they say with evidence (like you did with Yadin who you literally hand waved off by saying he might have once improperly interred the remains of some soldiers once )

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        That is a matter of opinion.
                        Unlike yours, one that is backed by evidence.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          This thread used to be about a really bad interpretation of a Scripture passage.

                          Just sayin.
                          Another H_A thread displaying poor eisegesis that was quickly done in by proper exegesis

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Not sure what the point of that was aside from clearly demonstrating how you went from claiming it wasn't a science to rapidly moving the goal posts to a claim that "Not in the sense of a "hard" science."
                            Like many disciplines scientific techniques may be used for dating etc. However, the disciplines of textual criticism and of palaeography are not considered sciences.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Thank you for confirming here that your principle objection to him (after your other lame excuses collapsed) is that his book constituted a single volume.
                            I must also thank you for stating that in your opinion a 400 word article [with a photograph] by someone who is neither an archaeologist nor a military historian of the Roman army sufficiently ""covers the Roman-Jewish wars".

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            [*picks up copy of Skeptic, Vol 9 No.1, 2001 which I still have sitting by my computer*]
                            First, anyone copying that information from the magazine would be hard-pressed to miss "No.1"
                            I have no idea where the name Kennedy came from [Anno Domini I fear]. But I was of course referring to Patrick Frank.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Fourth, and perhaps more importantly, the paragraph you represent as being the first one on page 57 is actually comprised of two separate paragraphs.
                            On page 57 of my copy I have two columns with the third column comprising a graph of the Pueblo Culture War Sites. That column then continues with text.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            I should also note that while there will always be disagreement, Keeley's work has been received very positively by the archaeological community with several building on his work.
                            Yes but he is not the sole arbiter and absolute commentator as you seem to think he is.

                            Again, you do this with all the individuals you cite, Yadin cannot be challenged . Loke, is" incredibly thorough". You hold up an individual as if their opinion is the only one that counts for anything in their particular discipline or on a specific topic.

                            You positively refuse to acknowledge that DiPrizio's thumbnail Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts only deals with selected examples and only gives very short articles.

                            Likewise you refuse to admit that the article by Edwards on Masada is nothing but an incredibly brief comment. Yet you considered that Edwards' piece was sufficient coverage and stated your position quite emphatically in a previous thread when you wrote "All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars."

                            I have no idea how you imagine a 400 word piece could adequately cover the First Jewish War. You have never explained your thinking regarding that.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Absolutely nobody is saying that anyone's work is beyond being challenged or criticized.
                            That is not the impression you present when you find your heroes.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            (like you did with Yadin who you literally hand waved off by saying he might have once improperly interred the remains of some soldiers once )
                            https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-...-review/24/6/3
                            On July 7, 1969, with due solemnity, the earthly remains of the last defenders of Masada were buried near the foot of the Roman ramp leading up to the site. The chief chaplain of the Israeli army, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, officiated. The dead were buried with full military honors, as befitted those who had withstood a Roman siege for three years nearly 2,000 years ago (70–73 A.D.). Various dignitaries, including Menachem Begin, who later became prime minister and signed the Camp David accords, attended. Yigael Yadin, Israel’s most illustrious archaeologist and the excavator of Masada, read from the final speech of Eleazar Ben Yair, commander of the Jewish defenders, as recorded by the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.

                            Such pomp would be all well and good were it not for one problem: Most of the skeletons buried in this ceremony were probably those of Roman soldiers and civilians, not of the Jewish defenders.

                            Unfortunately, the mistake in identity was not only the result of scholarly error; the story has all the earmarks of a deliberate attempt to avoid facing the evidence at hand.



                            The article continues:

                            What seems clear, however, is that Yadin’s confident assertion that he had found the skeletons of the Jewish defenders is vastly overstated. And Yadin may have been aware of it! In his scientific report on the first season of his excavations, he was considerably more cautious than in his popular book. In his preliminary scientific report of the excavation, he reported Haas’s conclusion that the skulls resemble the skulls from Nahal Hever. He then went on to write, “Are [the bones], then, the remains of some of the defenders of Masada? Some of the 960 heroes of the Revolt? We hope to be able to answer this question after the conclusion of our excavations” (emphasis added).

                            Yadin died in 1984 without ever returning in writing to the question.

                            The reason appears to be that Yadin knew at the time that pig bones were also found in the cave along with the human skeletons. He knew this from Dr. Haas’s report and admitted as much to me in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, Dr. Haas has also since died (after being hospitalized from January 1975 until November 1987 as the result of a fall). However, between 1964–1965, when the skeletal remains were turned over to him, and January 1975, Haas did have an opportunity to publish at least a preliminary report on these highly important finds, but he failed to do so. One wonders why. Even today, more than 30 years later, no scientific report on the excavation of this cave has been written, although Yadin’s students and colleagues have published a huge five-volume set of final reports. Aside from a plan showing an outline of the cave (vol. 3, p. 489), this set contains no discussion or even mention of either the human or the material remains from the locus where the bones were found, and this despite the statement in the area supervisor’s field diary that the cave was “rich” in material remains, including textiles, lamps, ostraca and basketry.

                            That no scientific description of the finds in Locus 2001/2002 was included in the final report was first brought to my attention by Professor James D. Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He had noticed that information on the skeletons was scarce to nonexistent, even after checking with authorities at the Israel Exploration Society, the group responsible for the final reports, as well as with principals who had been involved in the excavation itself. [...]

                            One of the results of Tabor’s research (conducted with the help of the Israel Exploration Society and its associate editor Alan Paris, who also served as associate editor of the Masada final report) was the discovery of Dr. Haas’s notes in the attic of one of his relatives.
                            There Haas twice mentions the presence of pig bones. In this connection, it should be noted that identifying skeletal remains of pigs in an archaeological context, particularly if the mandible or teeth are involved, is a simple matter for an experienced anatomist like Professor Haas, due to the unique morphological patterning of pigs’ teeth. [...]

                            The pig bones are important, of course, because of the Jewish aversion to pigs. Pigs are treif, that is, they are not kosher, and pork may not be eaten by observant Jews. Therefore, what would pig bones be doing among the human remains of those believed to be Jews?
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Another H_A thread displaying poor eisegesis that was quickly done in by proper exegesis
                              Still, I love it when people who believe the Bible is nonsense try to explain to us what the Bible says.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                Still, I love it when people who believe the Bible is nonsense try to explain to us what the Bible says.
                                I do not think I have ever stated that "the Bible" is nonsense although the texts are often contradictory.

                                However, to understand why those contradictions occur requires more than just reading one's translation and assuming it to be the "word of God".

                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                                36 responses
                                168 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 05-10-2022, 06:04 PM
                                5 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-02-2022, 09:53 AM
                                70 responses
                                380 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 04-24-2022, 06:02 PM
                                138 responses
                                763 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 04-20-2022, 12:01 PM
                                223 responses
                                1,309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X