Goliath's name found in archaeological dig

[dmp]

Yeah you sound like the brain child of the group...."I'm always right and your always wrong"

You sound more like a condescending douchebag that can't admit that he is wrong. I clearly owned you on this and you won't fess up to it.

Okay - here's the last word.

Official:
#1 - starting tomorrow morning you'll not be allowed access to this specific forum.

#2 - Exactly how was I owned? I'd guess any REASONABLE person can see you're an idiot with a vocabulary. The posts between my using #2 definintion of Barbarian, and my next reply to this forum clearly support my belief in your idiocy. It does you NO good to simply say 'You're a douche whom I 'owned' when you have NOTHING LOGICAL to base that claim upon. NOBODY with an IQ higher than that of the average domestic cat would think you've somehow 'won a debate' in this thread. Contrary to the "reality" YOU paint for yourself, you need to seriously work on a couple things:

1: Your critical thinking skills. As an example, you 'claim' the bible 'called these people barbarians' yet when asked to show WHERE your answer was 'Uh, it was implied, from my perspective". How can it not make sense to you that you lost that point??? You claim YOUR definition of 'barbarian' MUST be the definition the bible 'clearly implies to you', and ALL OTHER definitions OBVIOUSLY can't apply...did I mention the bible doesn't refer to those people as barbarians? YOU do, however.

2: Your People Skills, or lack thereof.

Enjoy the other forums, but you've spread enough shit in THIS forum for now.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But you'd be a fool not to see that the evidence against the bible is much more compelling than the evidence for the bible. .

and then you have the termacity to call someone thinking of banning you from the religiion forum a communist.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by Abbey Normal
I read the article. Here are the quotes you must be referring to:

"Up until now most of what we know about the Philistines is from the Bible's point of view. ... We get a very, very subjective view. They're the bad people, the barbarians, we don't get anything nice about them," he said.

"When we look at the Philistines from an archaeological point of view we get evidence of a very rich, dynamic, fascinating and advanced culture."

The problem is, these two statements do not even contradict each other. A civilization can be "bad" (brutal, immoral, cruel) and still be technologically and socially advanced. They can also be "bad" and be technologically simple. There are no moral prerequisites.

And since the pottery is the only thing the author described, it is logical to conclude that he saw it as an example of the "advanced state of the Philistine culture.

I don't think that the only thing they've ever found of these people was this piece of pottery. It was just the only relevant thing to the story of David and Goliath. I'm sure they have other evidence to suggest that they are technologically advanced. The point is he thinks they are technologically advanced and he himself says that the bible doesn't say such a thing. As I've stated and proved earlier one of the prerequisites of being a barbarian is that you have a retrograde primitive culture. Apparently that is not the case.

This is pretty incredible. Are you sure you were only joking in that other post about "drinking too much"?

The author specifically states "Up until now most of what we know about the Philistines is from the Bible's point of view. ."

Then you say: "I don't think that the only thing they've ever found of these people was this piece of pottery.... I'm sure they have other evidence to suggest that they are technologically advanced."

And you proved exactly how, that a prerequisite of being a barbarian is to have a retro grade culture? You think the Japanese and Germans in WWll were barbarians? You think the nazis were barbarians? Yet they had highly developed cultures.

Abbey is absolutely right, the two statements do not contradict each other, the latter only ADDS more information about the culture we didnt have before.

You arent even fun debating with, toooooooooo easy.............

 

[MissileMan]

and then you have the termacity to call someone thinking of banning you from the religiion forum a communist.

I think the word you were looking for is audacity. I have to say I'm surprised it hadn't happened earlier.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

First off, I was speaking about the Bible.
Second, The pottery only reveals a name, THAT'S IT PEOPLE!!!
Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't provide or take away from any story,
myth, fact, legend, or fairytale out there. Sorry, keep reaching.

not true. Since there is a famous story, that some claim never occured, in the Bible, it lends credence to the factuality of that story. You think its just a coincidence that there was a Jewish story about a Philistine who was great amongst them, his name was Goliath, and that in that same era a piece of pottery was made with his name on it? I hate to tell you this, but people usually only put names on pottery of people who are significant, have accomplished something.

You attempting to say it does not lend ANY credence whatsoever to the Biblical account, is reaching......nowhere.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would the name of a valiant warrior be inscribed on pottery 100 years after he lived?

.

Is this a serious question, or are you reading Powermans book of logic 101 for dummies????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm sorry. I just don't picture most barbarians as the technological leaders of their time.

And according to dictionary.com I have a pretty good understanding of the word. Barbarians are usually of retrograde civilizations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barbarian

So apparently it is YOU who do not know what the word means.

I HATE to tell you (mr logic) this, but when the dictionary has more than one entry of definitions, when the word is used, it doesnt have to meet ALL of those definitions. So, when the Bible used the term barbarian, it could be used exclusively in the context of the second entry, cruel, harsh, etc,

but once again, you are finding any way possible to look at this from your own point of view, the BIBLE IS WRONG....far greater minds than yours or mine have tried to prove that and failed,,,,,trust me...

 

[MissileMan]

not true. Since there is a famous story, that some claim never occured, in the Bible, it lends credence to the factuality of that story. You think its just a coincidence that there was a Jewish story about a Philistine who was great amongst them, his name was Goliath, and that in that same era a piece of pottery was made with his name on it? I hate to tell you this, but people usually only put names on pottery of people who are significant, have accomplished something.

You attempting to say it does not lend ANY credence whatsoever to the Biblical account, is reaching......nowhere.

Do the representations of Anubis on Egyptian pottery mean that Anubis existed? I don't think so. The name of Goliath on a pot is interesting, but proves nothing at this point. And if in fact Goliath existed and was slain by David, again, it doesn't prove that everything in the Bible is 100% factual.

BTW, your next to last line is funny. It might hold true if this were a Jewish pot...I'm pretty sure that the Philistines wouldn't consider "Goliath, the giant who was slain by a pipsqueak" a tale worth saving for posterity.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I see you conveniently ignored the first definition of barbarians. How many fierce brutal cruel civilizations do you know that aren't retrograde. Barbarians are retrograde civilizations. Look at the Muslim world in the Middle East right now. Nothing but stupid retrograde barbarians. They certainly aren't on par technologically with us. Advanced civilizations are not barbaric. Just admit you are wrong. I've done it before.

no, no, no, mr logic,,,,you got it backwards. YOU stated emphatically the two sentences contradict each other. So, that means when the word barbarian is used, then EVERY FORM POSSIBLE for it must be considered, if EVEN ONE of the forms allows it to be used without contradicting the other sentence, then you no longer have PROOF the two sentences contradict each other (I thought you said your logic skills were good?)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Abbey I'm not referring to the piece of pottery. If you have read the article you would know that I am not. They claimed that this was an especially advanced civilization for the times according to their finds. If anything it was probably the Jews who were the barbaric idiots. Given their history in the bible it would be quite consistent.

Oh, so now suddenly the Bible is accurate???? Oh my gawd !!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe they didn't use the word but it sounds to me as if they implied it. I don't believe the word barbarian was actually coined until new testament times.

Oh, this is getting better by the post. So, now they "implied" it, and yet you feel compelled that a dictionary.com technical definition of a word they didnt even use is evidence the Bible is wrong,,,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Do you think you have some intellectual foothold on me because you are the admin of a message board? What makes you right and me wrong? The author of the article himself points to the bible being wrong in that regard..

No, the author never claimed the Bible is wrong in that regard. He merely stated that the Bible didnt show all sides of the philistines.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Do the representations of Anubis on Egyptian pottery mean that Anubis existed? I don't think so. The name of Goliath on a pot is interesting, but proves nothing at this point. And if in fact Goliath existed and was slain by David, again, it doesn't prove that everything in the Bible is 100% factual.

BTW, your next to last line is funny. It might hold true if this were a Jewish pot...I'm pretty sure that the Philistines wouldn't consider "Goliath, the giant who was slain by a pipsqueak" a tale worth saving for posterity.

Thanks for the term audacity,

Im not familiar with Anubis, but is there a tale from another civilization about anubis? iF so, then the representation on an Egyptian pottery would lend credibility to any such story, Yes.

I do think that many cultures have heroes that in the end failed, but they still spoke of them, and carried their stories through the annals of their histories. besides, considering David became the greatest of Jewish Kings, why would he be considered a pimpsqueek?

 

[MissileMan]

Thanks for the term audacity,

Im not familiar with Anubis, but is there a tale from another civilization about anubis? iF so, then the representation on an Egyptian pottery would lend credibility to any such story, Yes.

I do think that many cultures have heroes that in the end failed, but they still spoke of them, and carried their stories through the annals of their histories. besides, considering David became the greatest of Jewish Kings, why would he be considered a pimpsqueek?

Anubis was an Egyptian god with the body of a man and the head of a jackal.

I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem logical to me that someone would comemmorate a "loser", especially after a substantial amount of time had passed.

 

[Max Power]

Is this a serious question, or are you reading Powermans book of logic 101 for dummies????

I take it from your smart-ass response, that you don't have an answer.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Anubis was an Egyptian god with the body of a man and the head of a jackal.

I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem logical to me that someone would comemmorate a "loser", especially after a substantial amount of time had passed.

maybe thats why the pottery was broken and discarded.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

not true. Since there is a famous story, that some claim never occured, in the Bible, it lends credence to the factuality of that story. You think its just a coincidence that there was a Jewish story about a Philistine who was great amongst them, his name was Goliath, and that in that same era a piece of pottery was made with his name on it? I hate to tell you this, but people usually only put names on pottery of people who are significant, have accomplished something.

You attempting to say it does not lend ANY credence whatsoever to the Biblical account, is reaching......nowhere.

It can't be proven that the name was in fact the very same Goliath, or the relavance of this name
on the pottery. Names on pottery could also show ownership.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It can't be proven that the name was in fact the very same Goliath, or the relavance of this name
on the pottery. Names on pottery could also show ownership.

If you want to get down to it, nothing can really be proven.

There are the holocaust deniers, they say it never occured. They use the same basic tools the anti Bible gang here employ.

Fact is, the truth of the Bible endures because it is true. People continue to live by the wisdom handed down through the ages.

I feel quite confident that those who are attacking the validity of the Bible here, do not use the same standards on other issues.

The main difference for you and for me is I happen to have been lucky enough to be beaten to a pulp, so I had ZERO agenda to know the truth. Its the irony of life, that our greatest handicap winds up becoming our greatest ally.

For those who never reach the point of "no agenda", the search for truth is always tainted.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

If you want to get down to it, nothing can really be proven.

There are the holocaust deniers, they say it never occured. They use the same basic tools the anti Bible gang here employ.

Fact is, the truth of the Bible endures because it is true. People continue to live by the wisdom handed down through the ages.

I feel quite confident that those who are attacking the validity of the Bible here, do not use the same standards on other issues.

The main difference for you and for me is I happen to have been lucky enough to be beaten to a pulp, so I had ZERO agenda to know the truth. Its the irony of life, that our greatest handicap winds up becoming our greatest ally.

For those who never reach the point of "no agenda", the search for truth is always tainted.

I've also been beaten to a pulp. I been shot at, and near death many times
over. Still don't think Christianity is the right way for ME. I don't mean
to come off as a pushy non-believer, in fact I try and keep my mouth shut.
It just burns me to see someone be so persistent (on both ends) to
influence others of their religious preference. I'm actually Native American
and study my peoples culture and religion. Spiritual just seems the way to go
for me, but you'll never see me pushing my views on anyone. I can understand
that most on here feel passionate about their religion or lack thereof. Still don’t
see it right for anyone (on both sides) to say theirs is right and any other is wrong.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I've also been beaten to a pulp. I been shot at, and near death many times
over. Still don't think Christianity is the right way for ME. I don't mean
to come off as a pushy non-believer, in fact I try and keep my mouth shut.
It just burns me to see someone be so persistent (on both ends) to
influence others of their religious preference. I'm actually Native American
and study my peoples culture and religion. Spiritual just seems the way to go
for me, but you'll never see me pushing my views on anyone. I can understand
that most on here feel passionate about their religion or lack thereof. Still don’t
see it right for anyone (on both sides) to say theirs is right and any other is wrong.

J, I understand your feelings, but this thread started out as a post on a current discovery which could be historical backup for the Bible. I did not see anyone trying to convince others to convert to Christianity. It was because some felt compelled to use the information to try to debunk the Bible that the thread turned contentious.

Attacks on Christianity in America today may be making some Christians feel justifiably defensive. As for this board in particular, I do not go around telling non-Christians that they are idiots and morons for not believing in the Bible. I do not tell people they are going to Hell. So if a poster takes every opportunity to try to slap down my faith, to tell me I am an idiot for believing (and yes, some do that, repeatedly), I don't take that very well. And why should I?

Believe, don't believe, I don't care. But I will never understand nor condone such single-minded compulsion to turn people away from their religion.