The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: Challenge to Tiglath - Part I

Re: Challenge to Tiglath - Part I
Posted by parhad (Guest) - Sunday, August 22 2004, 0:37:40 (CEST)
from - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Paul Younan wrote:
>Hi Khizma,
>
>One the subject of whether or not the Patriarchs of the Hebrews were Akkadians, I'd like to have your thoughts on a series of questions. Here is the first one:

...wait a minute and before you get started...Abraham wasn't Akkadian...for all you know his ancestrots came from Paris...you're merely picking up where the Jews tried to validate themselves..like saying the thief came from Mesopotamia so it was an inside job...no pun intended.
>
>(1) The first evidence I'd like your comments on is from the recently published "Archives Royales De Mari", a French translation of nearly 5,000 cuneiform tablets from Mari on the Euphrates River which was published in 23 volumes.

...hold on there...when Tiglath asked you for ONE piece of evidence to back your claims...we all know the story of Abraham...you said you had none...how would you like it if Tiglath answered as you did...that, khizmi, "it's all in your heart and if you don't know the answers I can't tell you"? Why don't YOU accept your own challenge..why don't you provide empirical logic and evidence for your outrageous claims? No one says Abraham didn't come from Mesopotamia..what the hell does that proove? Have there never been traitors from one land? Did you not vote for those attacking the very home of Abraham?

...How come you get to issue challenges when you won't give an honest answer to several put to you? Tiglath asked you a fair question and yet again you ignored it and come back now asking us if water is wet. That isn't in doubt anywhere...Abraham was from Ur...that's all anyone can say IF and it's a big IF they choose to believe any of this crap...all that follows is conjecture...YOU know none of this yourself...However..for you to claim that Mesopotamians were preparing the way for this idiot pholosophy of the Jews you picked up...there should be at least ONE indication in all of OUR literature...OURS, not reinterpreted for us...to back you up...how come you skip over it and launch into yet another demand for empirical this and that and now issue your own challenge?

...Can you not see how you dodge issues while expecting us to answer each and every point you raise? I just wrote for an hour pulling your wings apart and you come back with a line? And when, after spilling your tripe all over the place...Tiglath asked for no more than you did...no more than Aprim did..that you back such outrageous claims with ONE bit of evidence..you stepped aside like you didn't hear a thing. Are you daft?
>
>The wide time period covered in the Mari texts (from the 31st to the 6th centuries B.C.) allow for the biblical timeframe of Abraham.

...so?
>
>From evidence gathered in the Mari texts, Amorite personal names tended to be built from an imperfect verb. One such name, "Ishmael," (meaning, "God has heard" from the imperfect of "shma", "hear") has been found *twice* in the Mari texts.

...garbanzo beans grow in Turkey too...so?
>
>As you know from your reading of Genesis - Abraham had a son Ishmael by his concubine or slave wife Hagar.

..we also know he threw them out of house to go starve...more proof that he was thrown out of Mesopotamia...we didn't "do" child sacrifice and infanticide..that was Hebrew stuff...and you STILL haven't dealt with the simple and plainly known fact that Abraham never heard of yahwe in Ur...he picked him up in a desert outpost under a cowpie...the "voices" Abraham hear were NOT of Yahwe...no one outside of that small tribe of nose pickers ever heard of yahweh...and the Hebrews only became the Jews AFTER returning for exile...Abraham never knew a "Jew" either.

Of course, the use of such a biblical name can not prove the historicity of the biblical character, but it does offer a confirmation that such a name was possible in antiquity and lends independent proof of Abraham's existence.

..if you cannot PROVE the actual existance, in history and not just fable in this way...how do you still get "confirmation" and then "independent PROOF". for your claim? You first introduce the word "prove" by saying you "can not prove" he existed...then you come back a line later and say this non-proof "offers confirmation" and independent PROOF of what JUST said wasn't proven? How do you do that? I mean write this stuff down and feel you said something?

It "proves" only that you BELIEVE there was an Abraham and once you accept that and accept his son and accept the name, you can lay claim to where the name came from...so? We have every reason to believe that Fred is short for Frederick and it is of Saxon descent...so does that make Fred Aprim a German? Are you alltogether there?

...there is no "proof" that any of the bible is true...the whole thing is taken on Faith....sprinlked in and around common knowledge that can be corroborated in conjucntion with other information you Jews have spiked the story with fantastic nonsense and "prophecies" that were written well AFTER the events they purport to prophesy...we KNOW this is true because it makes no sense that God saw fit to speak to the Jews, of all people..and has never found occasion since then to talk to anybody but the Son of Sam and other madmen...if the world was in such awful shape back then..if there was whoring and fornications and pissess and farts 3000 years ago that yahwe had to rouse himself and make his displeasure known directly to the lead skunks of their day...then how come he hasn't ever done that again? Is he pleased now that he couldn't sleep back then?

..there is far more proof of every kind that the bible is a compilation made by a passle of charlatans..as those days and that region especially was filled with people who were prone to see and hear things....
>
>Look forward to your thoughts, as you are open-minded unlike Parhad.

...and unlike Parhad you won't answer in the same way you demand to be dealt with...when the going gets tough you skip over what you can't handle..ignore it altogether...or provide some mush about how you just "have to believe"...then why on earth do you pretend to want serious and empirical dialogue at other times..when you think things are stacked in your favor?

...What on earth does a shared name have to do with claiming that therefore the Jews were Assyrians in disguise?

note: you and I both know your answers would be less than edifying and be limited to pointing out errors of grammar and maybe spelling...the point is not to dialogue with someone who knows already he hasn't much to say...you believe you make an excellent showing as one who would wade into deep waters, by coming over here to the lion's den..especially after your own creation banned Tiglath after sliming your relatives...what I enjoy so much is how you still have to run...but run in place, so to speak. Your continued posing as an intellectual who knows...who even has the hairy guts to come HERE and be able to take ANYTHING..in the same time-honored manner of your comrades in guts who stand there and get slapped about without uttering a peep...which you hope no one notices because you are "here" aren't you?...makes you as valuable as Andreas was in his way.

...I don't need you to answer me...I need people to see you not able to.
>
>-Paul



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 7971
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?Challenge_to_Tiglath_Part_I-1Dde.Ocgi.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9