sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Christian Origins and Archaeology

Subject: Re: Christian Origins and Archaeology
From: "Tom McDonald"
Date: 19 Dec 2006 17:41:28 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Carl wrote:
> Doug Weller wrote:
> > On 18 Dec 2006 17:11:27 -0800, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Carl wrote:
> > >...
> > >Now are you going to discuss the need for an odometer in the Qumran
> > >community,...
> >>...
> >
> > And still there is this argument:
> > http://tinyurl.com/y8tshh
> > "To Market, To Market
> > I agree with Abraham Levy ("Bad Timing," BAR 24:04) that the circular
> > object found at Qumran is not a sundial.
> >...
>
> orion Qumran sundial? - Stephen Goranson
> http://orion.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1998a/msg00650.html
>
> Further, know that Goranson's post 1998 stirred no response on Orion.
> Zero.
> (Goranson was on my Christian Origins Internet Forum and we have had
> exchanges.)
>
> Is there a way for SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY that I summarize the arguments a
> few scholars made for the object to be a sundial, at least in part?
> I mean a trail of proper academic citations as well.
>
> Actually, it is difficult in the extreme, but not impossible.
>
> The only way I know is for me to excerpt from Thiering's published
> article 2002.
>
> But, this is a ton of work for me because I can't cut and paste; I have
> to type
> the material, still obeying "fair use".
>
> In a way, this is UNFAIR; but since my purpose is to change minds here,
> I will
> do it.  But, bear with me; it may take several loops/iterations on the
> Newsgroup
> to accomplish it satisfactorily.
>
> How much easier for me it would be if those here interested in the
> Qumran stone disk/sundial/roundel would simply read the article
> themselves by committing
> to go to the Springer/Brill website and purchase the article for $25 or
> otherwise
> get it somehow!

Sorry, David/Carl, this will simply not work. You came here; you are
putting forward arguments (albeit chiefly as BT's amanuensis) which
require adequate support via evidence; this being an archaeological
newsgroup, the primary evidence should be archaeological, with other
types of evidence (historical, religious, etc.) being brought in to
investigate the archaeological evidence; if the evidence you need to
provide is not easily available, it is up to you to decide whether to
find a way to provide it, or to let it go (and with it all the parts of
the arguments that rely on it); if you choose to do the scutwork
necessary to support your argument, then   a little and then do it.

Asking people to pay money for evidence in a discussion no one else is
particularly interested is a recipe for failure.

I am trying to step through this in a way that, in my view, gives you
the best possible chance of you being paid attention to. It requires
slowing down, providing information when asked, and replying with your
own words, even when the words are "I have to look into this further."


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>