Page 92 of 122
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:58 pm
by Guest
That's what the article was about....Persian water works. If it were about a Assyrian fertilizer factory, I would have posted that too.
what does the fact that they could renovate prove ? every nation would have its construction people, but to what extent is not always constant. some ;eaders believed in monuments because their egos were probably bigger thantheir pocket books while others just liked the spoils of war.
i.e. attila the hun
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:15 pm
by Minimalist
Attila is outside the geographic area for biblical archaeology. However, an interesting character.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:08 pm
by Guest
Attila is outside the geographic area for biblical archaeology
he was just an example.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:43 pm
by Minimalist
He should have killed Pope Leo and done the world a favor.
Schmuck.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:10 pm
by Guest
starflower--- here is a passage of scriptures that indicate thatthe migration was done by invitation not invasion:
45:17 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye;
lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan;
45:18 And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and
I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the
fat of the land.
45:19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the
land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring
your father, and come.
45:20 Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is
your’s.
45:21 And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons,
according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them
provision for the way.
thus there would be no need to have this recorded in the annals as it was a personal act from the Pharaoh himself and not a battle worthy of recording.
thus i doubt there would be any record of the original Israelites coming to Egypt plus initially they were given the best land as it was a reward for all the Joseph had done for the country.
thus if that puts them in the delta area, then again their presence would be overshadowed by other migrants. also
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:21 pm
by john
archaeologist wrote:starflower--- here is a passage of scriptures that indicate thatthe migration was done by invitation not invasion:
45:17 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye;
lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan;
45:18 And take your father and your households, and come unto me: and
I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the
fat of the land.
45:19 Now thou art commanded, this do ye; take you wagons out of the
land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and bring
your father, and come.
45:20 Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is
your’s.
45:21 And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons,
according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them
provision for the way.
thus there would be no need to have this recorded in the annals as it was a personal act from the Pharaoh himself and not a battle worthy of recording.
thus i doubt there would be any record of the original Israelites coming to Egypt plus initially they were given the best land as it was a reward for all the Joseph had done for the country.
thus if that puts them in the delta area, then again their presence would be overshadowed by other migrants. also
typical written administrivia, directed at indigenous people who couldn't care less, and codified, later, into a book driven by political purpose.
the real deal here, as then, as now, is what is the tax basis?
i.e. how the hell do you get these border crossing goatherders into the administrative revenue stream?
john
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:29 pm
by Minimalist
There was no Joseph. There was no invitation. There were no Israelites at the time in question.
It's all a load of crap invented later.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:34 pm
by Guest
There was no Joseph. There was no invitation. There were no Israelites at the time in question.
that was addressed to starflower, is that your new handle? i am allowed to engage other people on this board. i thought you wanted to talk about persian plumbing?
in comparison, how does the persian remodelling stack up against the minoan construction?
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:35 pm
by Minimalist
No but I'm not going to let you pile this religious bullshit in here without refutation.
If you want to send a PM, go ahead.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:36 pm
by Minimalist
Minoans had excellet plumbing, btw.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:43 pm
by Guest
No but I'm not going to let you pile this religious bullshit in here without refutation
that wasn't refutation just pure 'the club' denial and nothing to do with constructive dialogue.
Minoans had excellet plumbing, btw
yes they did, that is why i asked the question.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:49 pm
by Minimalist
You keep quoting shit from the bible as if it has some special meaning.
It doesn't.
It was created ages later to give your Israelite pals a history.
They needed one.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:11 am
by john
archaeologist -
in order for you to pursue this argument, please publish (even in pdf form) persian and minoan plumbing blueprints.
thanks in advance.
john
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:01 am
by Minimalist
LOL.
Really, John. There was just a show on History or History International about how good the Minoan plumbing was. No good against tidal waves or marauding Greeks, though.
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:46 am
by Guest
starflower-- there is a post addressed to you, if you can find it amidst the kibbetzers.
on another note---it wasn't funny john