Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:49 pm

archaeologist wrote:
See above. There is no alternative for reading the book. Dever goes on for pages about the stupidity of the so-called Conquest
when you start reading the ones i have used then maybe i will consider reading the ones you have posted.

a quote from taken from wikipedia* which best illustrates oneof the weaknesses of dever:

"Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not.
the Bible is not a grocery store where you get to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. doesn't work that way. dever, like finkelstein and others, set themselves up as the people who get to make the declaration of what is true and what isn't and that isn't their authority nor responsibility.

they use scant evidence or dismiss other pieces of information which proves the Bible true to make their conclusions which are not based on archaeological fact but solely upon interpretation and their own belief.

You react emotionally, not scientifically
i think that describes you and your tirades not me.

*wikipedia was the only source that came up that gave such a biography but is a good example of why i don't like it as well, as its information is scant in some places and its own sources are questionable.

the Bible is not a grocery store where you get to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong.

LOL....and you are living proof of the level of dementia needed to buy the whole pile of shit without a single critical thought.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:48 pm

i noticed you avoided dealing with the issues raised and only attacked where it was meaningless.

why don't you deal with the issues instead of trying to distract from the point being made?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:53 pm

the Bible is not a grocery store where you get to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong.

so when did you get circumcised ?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:57 pm

sorry the book of acts took care of that

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:01 pm

archaeologist wrote:i noticed you avoided dealing with the issues raised and only attacked where it was meaningless.

why don't you deal with the issues instead of trying to distract from the point being made?

Because we've been around this block so many times. If you have forgotten, go back and re-read the thread. My impression is that you are too young to be suffering from Alzheimer's so I have to ascribe your apparent inability to remember things to stubborness.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:01 pm

archaeologist wrote:sorry the book of acts took care of that

More fiction.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:26 pm

Because we've been around this block so many times

i think that Sheler raises a point we haven't discussed. plus with his commentary on the actual thrust of the military action, it opens the evidence to be looked at in a way that supports the biblical account and not a minimalist position.

plus it underscores the point that those who disbelieve the biblical account tend to stray from the issue and look to attack where they perceive someone to be wrong then make the Bible guilty by association and not fact.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:57 pm

Well..... let's see.

7 These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev—the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

9 the king of Jericho one
the king of Ai (near Bethel) one

10 the king of Jerusalem one
the king of Hebron one

11 the king of Jarmuth one
the king of Lachish one

12 the king of Eglon one
the king of Gezer one

13 the king of Debir one
the king of Geder one

14 the king of Hormah one
the king of Arad one

15 the king of Libnah one
the king of Adullam one

16 the king of Makkedah one
the king of Bethel one

17 the king of Tappuah one
the king of Hepher one

18 the king of Aphek one
the king of Lasharon one

19 the king of Madon one
the king of Hazor one

20 the king of Shimron Meron one
the king of Acshaph one

21 the king of Taanach one
the king of Megiddo one

22 the king of Kedesh one
the king of Jokneam in Carmel one

23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor [c] ) one
the king of Goyim in Gilgal one

24 the king of Tirzah one
thirty-one kings in all.

Now this is from your book and it clearly states that the 31 kings had their land conquered and given to the tribes of Israel. Megiddo is in line #21.
So, clearly this guy has never read the bible or Dever!

Further, Dever does not include Beth-Shean as one of the #31 but clearly cites it as a Egyptian garrison town down to the days of Ramses III (c. 1150 BC).

Now, Judges 1:27 states:

1:27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.

That Megiddo was NOT taken which would seem to be one of those biblical contradictions which always seem to get your underwear in a knot whenever they are mentioned to you. Nonetheless, once again I can't say that I'm impressed by what you put forward as 'scholarship.'

I sense that these guys figure they are preaching to an audience of blind bible thumpers who will never bother to question anything told them so why bother to be accurate?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:46 am

That Megiddo was NOT taken which would seem to be one of those biblical contradictions

it is not a contradiction and Sheler isn't wrong as Dever is working from an assumption that since Jericho and Ai were demolished then all the other cities were too. not the reality. it is quite possible that for some of the cities that it was only the king that was killed, once the king was dead, the people probably gave up but struck a deal to stay alive.

i would need to do some more study on it before i could address the issue properly.

sense that these guys figure they are preaching to an audience of blind bible thumpers who will never bother to question anything told them so why bother to be accurate?

some do and some don't but againmegiddo wasn't totally destroyed nor was it mentioned that it was, just the kings were on that list. those cities that were destroyed were given more time and detail was provided.

Further, Dever does not include Beth-Shean as one of the #31 but clearly cites it as a Egyptian garrison town down to the days of Ramses III

i don't listen to dever so i would feel he is in error until corroborated by credible archaeologists.

by the way,next time you quote a passage please put in the reference, you did it for judges not joshua.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:47 am

So...this one is a lie, huh?

Joshua 11:

11:19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all [other] they took in battle.

and this one....

11:21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.

and this one.

11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

Listen, you'll get no argument from me if you want to declare the bible to be nothing but bullshit. I've seen more truth at a Bush press conference!

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:50 am

archaeologist wrote:
That Megiddo was NOT taken which would seem to be one of those biblical contradictions
it is not a contradiction and Sheler isn't wrong as Dever is working from an assumption that since Jericho and Ai were demolished then all the other cities were too. not the reality. it is quite possible that for some of the cities that it was only the king that was killed, once the king was dead, the people probably gave up but struck a deal to stay alive.

Pretty odd statement from someone who proudly proclaims that he has never read Dever, isn't it? I guess you are listening to all those Holy Joes, again.

i would need to do some more study on it before i could address the issue properly.

That would be refreshing for a change.

sense that these guys figure they are preaching to an audience of blind bible thumpers who will never bother to question anything told them so why bother to be accurate?
some do and some don't but againmegiddo wasn't totally destroyed nor was it mentioned that it was, just the kings were on that list. those cities that were destroyed were given more time and detail was provided.

Actually, Megiddo has been destroyed time and time again...just not by any fictitous Joshua.

Further, Dever does not include Beth-Shean as one of the #31 but clearly cites it as a Egyptian garrison town down to the days of Ramses III
i don't listen to dever so i would feel he is in error until corroborated by credible archaeologists.

See above.

by the way,next time you quote a passage please put in the reference, you did it for judges not joshua.

I thought you had that shit memorized?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:11 pm

i research all the time and just throwing something without context and expecting me to respond off the top of my head is a little unrealistic.

there are no lies or contradictionsin the Bible, only those who do a surface reading without actuall study and acceptanceof the reasons for such statements think there are.

why shjould i expect you to listen to me now when you haven't listened before? especially if yu accept dever's and finkelstein's position over the truth?

i may not have read dever but i watched an interview of him and i am not impressed.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:27 pm

i research all the time

no you don't

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:12 pm

there are no lies or contradictionsin the Bible

Dream on. It's loaded with them.

God was one shitty story teller.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:32 pm

Dream on. It's loaded with them

God was one shitty story teller.

no you don't

i am astounded by the wit and razor sharp intellect you produce here.

again from Is the Bible True by sheler pg. 88:

"The type of hyperbole foundin Joshua also is evident in ancient egyptian, assyrian, and hittite military inscriptions describing the magnitude of enemy defeats. One egyptian stele fromthe 15th c. b.c. commemorating the exploits of ThutmoseIII in the euphrates, makes the grandiose claim that 'the heads of the asiatics are severed, none escape(death)'. However, a few ines later it brags that thousands of prisoners were captured...

Despite such exaggerations, most scholars view inscriptions from the egyptian, assyrians and hittites as invaluable sourcesof historical information. The bookof Joshua, Hoffmeier rightly argues, should be judged no less valuable. Nor shuld its core historicity be considered diminished if it sometimeshyperbolic rhetoric does not stand up to archaeological scrutiny.

On the other hand, where the Bible specifies that a city was burned to a heapof ruins, oneshuld reasonably expect to find some evidence of fiery destruction in an archaeological excavation. But the book of Joshua describes only three such cases: jericho...Ai...hazor. What have archaeologists found at those sites?"

this goes on for a couple more pages describing the evidence found with the mentioning that Ai may not have been located yet but that hazor and jericho have evidence consistent with the Biblical account. (pgs. 88-89)
then on page 90 goes after kathleen kenyon...

to be continued....