More delusions from our dear iam part trois

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 14, 2010 at 06:43

Now back to Versteegh and for this see page 32 where we have the inscription from 'En 'Avdat dated 88CE to 150CE and this is what he says

"which represents the oldest example of a text in Arabic the three lines in arabic are part of an aramaic inscription in nabataean script to the god obdoas erected by garm'alahi son of taym'alahi

and let us read line two

fa kana huna yabghina al mawtu la abghahu

Anyone who knows Arabic would be able to understand what it says and it is

and he when death tried to claim us did not let it claim us (see Bellamy)

So did Versteegh make it up? Oh and you can tell them at Hebrew University that this is all fake and they will laugh at you

Oh next? Qaryat al-Faw dated 100-300BCE

>Kees Versteegh wrote in 1970's.

He wrote his book in the 1970? Really?

>There is no term ARAB in any of the texts he presents.

Really? where? could you provide us readers with the page number and the exact quote and you know what? we readers will watch you making a fool of yourself

>In fact he says the Arabic writings came with Islam, and supports everything I have said - no Arab race pre-500 BCE - no Arabic writings pre-400 CE:

Where does Versteegh say that? Mr ignorant no sound histoian will utter this nonsense now you provide us with the quote or shut up

And for the readers our dear iam provides us with a less than a page of book review of Versteegh's book so where can I find it is this review ?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OHfse3YY6NAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Versteegh&source=bl&ots=v63QJzkDc5&sig=ADXxwH8NMFWYqB83dzNgd0lAAvY&hl=en&ei=wGTrSjOtGHkAX8p6mxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".