Response to Ossuary post
  Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
06/13/2003, 07:56:38

Author Profile Mail author
Martin,

I am sure your title was for effect, for the ossuary itself in known to be ancient. I might note that the title certainly got me reading!

I also explored additional articles by Dr. Rochelee I. Altman.

http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/ossmirror.htm Ossuary was genuine, Inscription was faked.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/report_temple_tablet.htm "destruction of ancient artifacts for greed must be stopped."

I never before took the time to read the ossuary, but given additional information, one is enlightened. First, it is clear that the writings are by two different authors. Part is quite neat and easily legible and part looks the equivalent of my sloppy penmanship. Second, I am unfamiliar with ancient Aramaic, but even I can read the inscription and I am quite pathetic at Hebrew.

Thank you for the interesting read.

You may have forgotten, but the ignore button is still activated.

Ramona

P.S. I thought Hamelin merely left because he was limited in time do to his graduate studies.




| Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message

Re: Response to Ossuary post
Re: Response to Ossuary post -- Ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
06/17/2003, 06:32:53

Author Profile Mail author
Hello, Ramona. Good to "see" you and I hope all is well with you.

Regarding my opening post's title, I'm sure you appreciate that full semantic accuracy given a 50-character limit is not always easily achieved. I'd have preferred it to read "Inscription on Purported James Ossuary Found to be Fraudulent", but such was not possible for technical reasons.

But even as it does read, I hold it is accurate nevertheless, since the artifact is claimed and presented to be the New Testament's James' ossuary based entirely on the complete inscription, and since the inscription is fraudulent, the artifact as presented is fraudulent. There was never any serious doubt that the ossuary qua ossuary was genuinely ancient, especially since approximately one thousand such ancient boxes have been found over the years...

Thank you sincerely for the additional links. I'd read the first but not the second, which is a truly fascinating (if disturbing) document and you've done us an important and valuable service by bringing it to our notice. The discussion therein regarding the glaringly sub-professional, pro-religious "scientific analysis" by Ilani and Rosenfeld (and others) -- whose names and association with the Geological Service of Israel also gave artificial credence to the claims regarding the James ossuary as well -- should in all justice produce a great storm of protests and subscription cancellations to the now undeniably biased, unreliable, and non-scholarly Biblical Archaeology Review.


Thanks again.


- Martin


(p.s.: I'm no longer "ignoring" you)




| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Response to Ossuary post
Re: Re: Response to Ossuary post -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ramona ®
06/21/2003, 10:26:41

Author Profile Mail author
Martin,

I understand. I have been frustated as well by the limits of post titles.

I also thank you for bringing the topic. You seemed to have brought the news before it hit the newspapers, or at least the ones I had been reading. It was also quite the kick in the pants to not have seen what should have been clear to even my ignorant eyes.

Like you, I have had a forced vacation from the forum. While some may still not like me on the forum for my pointed probings and statements, my second surgery was quite successful and has brought about a healthier, happier, and "new" me.

Welcome back,

Ramona




| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous |   | Current page


Back to the forum

Overture Search the Web.
Type it and go!