|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: DavidDavid Date: Nov 11, 2007 09:26
-- all of which was bandied about
and appeared in the media depending on which co-director
was addressing the press begs the question: is this archaeology?"
Also, the author in other writings firmly places Essenes
at Qumran some 2,000 years ago.
|
| |
|
| | 147 Comments |
|
|
Author: Eric StevensEric Stevens Date: Nov 11, 2007 09:55
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:42 -0800, David yahoo.com>
wrote:
>By Joe Zias
> http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Zias_Qumran_Archaeology.htm
>
>"John the Baptist complete with a skull, James the
>Brother of Jesus, The Teacher of Righteousness, Bedouin
>women, Bedouin men -- all of which was bandied about
>and appeared in the media depending on which co-director
>was addressing the press begs the question: is this archaeology?"
>
>Also, the author in other writings firmly places Essenes
>at Qumran some 2,000 years ago.
Sound like someone with a partisan axe to grind.
Eric Stevens
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: DavidDavid Date: Nov 12, 2007 00:37
On Nov 11, 3:55 am, Eric Stevens sum.co.nz> wrote:> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:42 -0800, David yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>"John the Baptist complete with a skull, James the
>>Brother of Jesus, The Teacher of Righteousness, Bedouin
>>women, Bedouin men -- all of which was bandied about
>>and appeared in the media depending on which co-director
>>was addressing the press begs the question: is this archaeology?"
>
>>Also, the author in other writings firmly places Essenes
>>at Qumran some 2,000 years ago.
>
> Sound like someone with a partisan axe to grind.
>
> Eric Stevens
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Nov 12, 2007 10:27
On 11 Nov, 23:37, David yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can clear everything up among ourselves on the
> basis of the evidence, archaeological and textual.
You have no historical qualifications, no archaeological experience
and cannot read the texts. How on earth do you expect to be able to
make any useful contribution here?
Ian
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DavidDavid Date: Nov 12, 2007 13:25
On Nov 12, 4:27 am, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:> On 11 Nov, 23:37, David yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe we can clear everything up among ourselves on the
>> basis of the evidence, archaeological and textual.
>
> You have no historical qualifications, no archaeological experience
> and cannot read the texts. How on earth do you expect to be able to
> make any useful contribution here?
>
> Ian
Ignorant and disrespectful, aren't you?
Metaphorically speaking, you must have gotten up on the wrong
side of your bed.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Nov 12, 2007 14:38
On 12 Nov, 12:25, David yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 12, 4:27 am, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:>> You have no historical qualifications, no archaeological experience
>> and cannot read the texts. How on earth do you expect to be able to
>> make any useful contribution here?
> Ignorant and disrespectful, aren't you?
What qualifications do you have which enable you to teach or evaluate
Thiering's work competently?
I, myself, have none, so I have to rely on the expertise of those who
are qualified and recognized in the field. I note that without
exception they dismiss Thiering pesher. What makes your evaluation
worth the electrons it's sent with?
However ... I notice that you have on this occasion resisted the urge
to reintroduce soc.religion.quaker. Well done. Thank you.
Ian
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DavidDavid Date: Nov 12, 2007 18:14
On Nov 12, 8:38 am, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:> On 12 Nov, 12:25, David yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 4:27 am, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:>>> You have no historical qualifications, no archaeological experience
>>> and cannot read the texts. How on earth do you expect to be able to
>>> make any useful contribution here?
>> Ignorant and disrespectful, aren't you?
>
> What qualifications do you have which enable you to teach or evaluate
> Thiering's work competently?
>
> I, myself, have none, so I have to rely on the expertise of those who
> are qualified and recognized in the field. I note that without
> exception they dismiss Thiering pesher. What makes your evaluation
> worth the electrons it's sent with?
>
> However ... I notice that you have on this occasion resisted the urge
> to reintroduce soc.religion.quaker. Well done. Thank you.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Nov 12, 2007 19:15
On 12 Nov, 17:14, David yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What qualifications do you have which enable you to teach or evaluate
>> Thiering's work competently?
> It is crystal clear that I actually have studied everything Barbara
> Thiering
> published.
It's obvious that you have read a lot of her work, certainly. But it
also seems to be the case that your background and training are not
suffiecient to allow you to make an informed assessment of it.
> Even Dr. VanderKam, who wrote a 2-page review in 1985 and chaired
> her paper at the Jerusalem Conference in 1997, could not explain
> Thiering pesher if his life depended on it.
I am told that that is because she has never explained it in a way
which informs, let alone convinces, qualified scholars.
> I have consistently maintained that her 1981 article proves the
> existence
> of her pesher.
Your opinion is, however, worthless.
> Why don't you study it?
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DavidDavid Date: Nov 12, 2007 19:33
On Nov 12, 1:15 pm, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:> On 12 Nov, 17:14, David yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> What qualifications do you have which enable you to teach or evaluate
>>> Thiering's work competently?
>> It is crystal clear that I actually have studied everything Barbara
>> Thiering
>> published.
>
> It's obvious that you have read a lot of her work, certainly. But it
> also seems to be the case that your background and training are not
> suffiecient to allow you to make an informed assessment of it.
The exact opposite is the case. Are you often so wrong?
>> Even Dr. VanderKam, who wrote a 2-page review in 1985 and chaired
>> her paper at the Jerusalem Conference in 1997, could not explain
>> Thiering pesher if his life depended on it.
>
> I am told that that is because she has never explained it in a way
> which informs, let alone convinces, qualified scholars.
|
| Show full article (1.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Nov 12, 2007 19:52
On 12 Nov, 18:33, David yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 12, 1:15 pm, Ian btinternet.com> wrote:>> It's obvious that you have read a lot of her work, certainly. But it
>> also seems to be the case that your background and training are not
>> suffiecient to allow you to make an informed assessment of it.
>
> The exact opposite is the case. Are you often so wrong?
So you are saying that you /haven't/ read her work but you /are/
qualified to judge it?
Please tell us all what relevant formal study you have undertaken and
what relevant qualifications you have gained.
>> Your opinion is, however, worthless.
>
> On the contrary my opinion is highly informed.
Informed by what, precisely? You discount the opinions of all the
respected scholars who have rejected Thiering's claims. Sorry, David,
but a desperate desire for Thiering to be right in order to prove your
wife wrong for dumping you is not "being informed".
>> If I did have serious questions, I would ask an expert, not you.
|
| Show full article (1.57Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
