[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:20:28 +0300 (IDT), email@example.com writes:
>On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Thomas M.Simms wrote:
>> communication. Shishak is real. Hard data shows who he was. What hard
>> contemporary data shows that Solomon existed?
>What makes contemporary data so "hard?" Don't contemporaries lie? Why are
>you so sure that Shishak is not an invented character? I trully do not
>see whence comes the notion that whilst in present people tell the truth,
>regarding the past, they surely lie. What supports this trully strange
I guess you don't subscribe to the William Dever view of Levantine
Archaeology. I presume you are a charter member of the Flat Earth
A king sends his people to carve the story of his Palestinian Campaign
in stone. Of course he puffs up the account, but at the same time
read what Arrian says in the first page of the Anabasis about Kings
lying. It's as true today as in Ptolemy's time - post modernists should
never forget Richard Nixon. "I am not a crook." Sheesh.
Shishak would have been ashamed to have lied for all to see.