Re: Public told one untruth after another about the Dead Sea Scrolls

From: David Christainsen (david_christainsen_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: 20 Jun 2004 10:25:20 -0700

"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@notelia.com> wrote in message news:<aY0Bc.3076$dx3.24235@newsb.telia.net>...
> David C,
> I do have eyes to see. What I have seen from you here and the other times
> you have tried to bring your assumptions forward is that you still haven't
> got it:
> You need valid arguments,
> You can't lean to scholars using circle-proofs.
> Nothing you have written,
> nor any of the scholars you refered to,
> have shown to have any valid arguments for your assumptions!
> The best you have come up with is IF statements.
> IF that and that are wrong then B.
> what you missed is that you have to show that the IF is proven right. As you
> should know your assumptions stands and falls that the 'IF' situation
> happened.
> You haven't shown one single factor that point in that direction. What's
> worse is that when you refer to scholars you lean to you try to make believe
> that the 'IF' situation is proven by an other 'what IF' clausul. This means
> that you are even worse in your 'best' try than the scholars you lean to
> because you haven't understood the impossibility of using two 'What IF' and
> one circle argument. You have to start presenting valid arguments for each
> of the 'What IF'. That you never tried to.
>
> Inger E
>...

Dear Inger,

You are quite mistaken about "circle-proof".

Here, I'll prove it to you ---

Subject: Carbondating
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2674

Conclusion

"The radiocarbon dating of the relevant group of sectarian documents
within the Dead Sea Scrolls, when correlated with paleograohy and the
contents of the documents, allows the possibility that the Teacher of
Righteousness lived ands died during the period of the foundation of
Christianity. This conclusion is contrary to a view now commonly held,
that the radiocarbon datings have disproved a Christian connection."

Christian connections?

Then again,

From: David Christainsen (david_christainsen@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Qumran archaeology
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Date: 2004-06-01

Tom McDonald <Guest.165wbi@timelimit.explorate.de> wrote in message news:<Guest.165wbi@timelimit.explorate.de>...
>...
> It's up to you to make an archaeological argument. You may
> well be right about the 'ideological nerves'; but nothing is
> stopping you posting archaeological arguments here. In fact, if
> you could do so, I'd be grateful.
>
> Tom McDonald

Dear Tom,

QUMRAN HAS A HALL NEXT TO THE PANTRY

De Vaux maintained that the hall outside the Israelite wall was the
monks' refectory. (ref 1)

Yet, Dr. Thiering suggests it was for "the meals of visiting village
pilgrims". (ref 2)

In the second phase of occupation De Vaux states that the system for
flushing the floor was abolished because the floor of the hall was
levelled and the conduit pipe blocked. (ref 3)

BT's interpretation is that ritual washings, which happened in the first
phase after the visits of village Essenes, ceased by the onset of the
second phase. Let's understand these village Essenes were excluded
from certain areas of Qumran because these married men were unclean
compared to priests and celibate monks.

Her historical reconstruction has a reoccupation of Qumran after
the Earthquake (31 BC) by "seekers-after-smooth-things", who engaged
in "loose living", including sex, by strict Palestinian Essene standards.
This reoccupation started 11 BC.

The Temple Scroll, dated by her 25-21 BC in its original version, contains
the strict Palestinian Essene standards in that, for example, a man who
had recently had sexual intercourse could defile a holy area (11QT 45:11).

Does anybody still think the hall was the monks' refectory? In the
larger picture does Qumran archaeology fit in with Thiering chronology
and textual analysis?

(ref 1) ADSS p. 11
(ref 2) Jesus & The Riddle of The DSS p. 313
(ref 3) ADSS p. 26

With all good wishes,
Dave

Relevant Pages