Re: Ancient latrine fuels debate at Qumran

Tom McDonald wrote:
...
Your *** doesn't rise to the level of s.a.-worthiness.

If you bring us more detail about the ***, then maybe. *** is very
useful to archaeology. Some good *** would be a blessed relief here.
...

Hi Tom,

Ahem! How about the Qumran Sundial/"stone disk"? Do you think there
was
enough detail given before? I do but you failed to follow up for
reasons known only to
yourself. BTW, Pfann had been mentioned - I wonder why (big hint).

Let's back up to the big picture - I asked a question but you did not
answer it.
Instead, you brought up a petty distraction.

So, it's back to the DSS. For starters, there's the radiocarbon
debate. Ahem!
No one on this newsgroup answered my previous recent post on it. Use
Search
Facility to find it, if interested.

A lot more could be said about DSS, but I'll save it for now.

As a teaser, is there anything I've previously posted in this newsgroup
relating certain
specifics in the NT (John's Gospel) to archaeology, even in a
tangential way?
If interested, use the Search Facility to find it.

If not, that's OK too.

Your're in fine form; keep it up.

As ever,
David

.

Loading