🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@rhertle thank you

@realcaseyrollins Treating ADHD can be a mixed bag.. the treatment fixes many of the issues, but also causes plenty of their own

@realcaseyrollins

How are you not a millionaire already!

@ephemeromorph Let me know if you have any questions about it or any feedback or even help if you decide to install it.

@freepeoplesfreepress

I would take issue with your wording of "only".. but the quote does show that an enemy is one of the best teachers :)

@jla

If you feel like it please let me know how it goes.

You are welcome.

@andypiper

@ned

As a general rule I expect there to be some truth in the bible, just distorted over long periods.. so can be hard to seperate the fact from fictions

@realcaseyrollins

@rhertle Thats kinda the point though right... like a single piece of stone with a phrase on it is such weak evidence it really doesnt tell you much.

that said see this response, I was incorrect:

https://qoto.org/@freemo/111220556960122777

@ned

Actually iw as just about to respond to let you know I was wrong.

I went back and reread the scholarly sources on it and they were not claiming it never existed... they were claiming that it was likely **much** smaller than claimed (some isolated villages) and didnt develop till much later in history than the bible suggests. Not that a jewish nation never existed.

My apologies I was wrong on that it seems.

@realcaseyrollins this is relevant to you too, i got my facts mixed up.

@ech im re reading the source i original got this from (that israel never existed)... it seems i misread.. what it was saying is israel was likely far less expansive as it suggests in the bible as early on as it was... but I think I misread and it is claiming there was an israel, it just formed much later and was much much smaller than biblical accounts.

@ned

Why would you have to invoke a topic that proves you wrong in order for me to invoke it?

Like ok you never invoked the historical versions of the bible as evidence... well they still provide evidence against you. So you dont have to invoke it in order for it to be valid for me to do so.

@rhertle

Huh? how do you know what date the scroll is, the scroll probably doesnt even exist anymore.

Obviously the **modern** version of the scroll wasnt written yet... and the earliest version of the scrolls also didnt exist yet. But to assert that we have the earliest version that was ever written just doesnt make sense. Likely there are earlier scrolls written of most things that go back well before the versions we physically find and are simply lost to time.

No one knows when the very first version was written.. all we know is random snapshots of versions at different points in time with little way to know how many iterations it had went through before then.

@ned

> you keep bringing up anachronisms, even though I have deliberately avoided biblical references as I know you have already dismissed them. You're arguing with yourself.

No I have dismissed them. In fact I specifically use them as historical evidence by looking throught he revisions and timeline of when they existed and comparing the evidence in the various versions to determine which versions are closest to fact and which versions are just the evolution of that fact over time.

We have two copies, of a book in the bible in particular, one lines up factually and explicitly states no such kingdoms existed, the other is factually inaccurate and determined to be written a long time after the time period and thus less likely historic.

Even then if we do as you say and forget about biblical source, then all your left with as your one piece of evidence is that someone at some point a person wrote "house of david" somewhere... which if totally divorced from the bible has no meaning. of any value and hardly as a sole piece of evidence suggests any sort of jewish kingdom existing.

Given its date I have already given a far more plausible reason, and that is someone who wrote or read an early version of the mythos that came to be the bible believed the mythos and for one reason or another wrote something they read in that scroll in some rock once. That makes a lot more sense to me given the preponderance of evidence.

@rhertle wait what? No one said anything about digging or traces? Somewhere along the line it seems you misunderstood what i said.

@ned

Well i have already explained why me, and a large portion of historians thinks that is absurd.. dates dont line up, the evidence is filled with verifiable errors, the one piece of writing in stone can just as easily be explained as a believer in the myth that was the scrolls that later became the bible, and more important of the two versions of the text the one that said no such nations every existed is facually more accurate than the one that says one does.

You want to believe it, go for it. But the preponderance of evidence is against you from every direction.

@rhertle ahh ok good find then.. I suspect the range in dates accounts for any reasonable error in that process.

Regardless the dates put everything in question, and even if the dates lined up someone writing "house of david" on a block of stone is pretty weak evidence of anything other than the fact that whoever wrote the scrolls either also carved the stone, or inspired people to beleive the mythos and later carved the stone as worshipers or beleivers in the myth written in scrolls.

Obviously if there was more context and evidence it might make compelling evidence... but as is its very weak and easily dismissed.

@ned

No .. not even sure how you got that, imnot trying to define kingdom in any way other than the way it always is...

I am talking about the idea that the existance of a nation called israel, judae, or judah is thought by a great many historians never to have existed, and outside of the bible there is no credible or concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

That point I thought was clear on the original post but if not hopefully now it is... no need to redefine or use any weird definitions of kingdom, im using the word int he usual sense here.

@rhertle Off hand I dont know how they dated it exactly... but that is the general range of dates accepted by historians.. and many historians discount the existance of such a kingdom... so im willing to accept the date range and skepticism as the reasons all add up based on what facts I know and the scientific community accepts (at least many of them, its hardly a settled subject).

That said if you think the dating was wrong im happy to hear the evidence.