Current Biblical Archaeology

[Guest]

Well, arch, if you don't like it here you could always leave

so you dohave an agenda for your tenure here.

The reason I don't discuss much with you is because you stubbornly ignore recent research if it wasn't done by biblical archaeologists with an agenda to prove the bible to be true

i ignore it wheni discover or know when it isn't right not thatthey are not biblical. i think i have stated many times that i read more secular authors than religious ones.

The things you attribute to "evolutionists" are exactly the same things you yourself do, but you seem to think that because god is on your side you have the right to discard our statements and only accept the religious ones

i can only take what is true and yes i do have the right to discard statements that do not lead to the truth. i also have the right to question the hypothesis put forth because they don't make any sense.

What makes you qualified to say things like "i don't like dever and finkelstein because they are wrong"? How do you know they are wrong? Did god tell you?

i think i showed that with quotes from kitchen, davies and other archaeologists, not from divine revelation.

You run down science, not a good thing to do on a board full of scientists and people who look at things from a scientific point of view.

i don;t run down science, i run downthe conclusions and the speculation. ithink science is a wonderful tool but it is not the definitive answer machine.

You ignore people when they say things you don't agree with.

i ignore people when they go too far in their posts or keep repeating the same thing over and over agian without providing any link or source to support their contentions.

You insult our collective intelligence on a regular basis

this is binary, it is pretty hard to avoid doing that given the diverse personalities on this board. plus you seem to enjoy it when you do it to me, so i would fix your end first before acussing me of doing things like that.

Other than that you're ok

frank, i am just here to discuss and i put up with a lot more from all the others and you, than what you think you get from me. why don't you stop and put yourself in my shoes for awhile and look at the comments i receive from my point of view. see how it is 'on the other side of the fence' before casting judgment.

[Frank Harrist]

Typical, arrogant, smug, condescending response which I expected from you. You're living proof that you don't have to be smart to get a degree.

[Minimalist]

The so-called Inventory Stela..., which dates from the 7th or 6th centuries b.c. and which purports to be a copy of an old kingdom text, states that the great sphynx was already in existence during the reign of Khufu, who preceeded Khafre. In fact, this stela credits Khufu with repairing the sphynx after it was struck by lightnin-- which is consistent with the obvious repair work done on the monument and the sphynx and the valley temples. Modern egptologists generally treat the inventory stela as a late period fabrication of an old kingdom text, and refuse to accept it as authentic."

Let me ignore the pissing contest (just for a moment) and get back to this.

Do you know WHY they refuse to accept it? Because, in the view of Egyptologists, the Isis 'cult' did not emerge until later. While that is true it also seems incredibly irrelevant. Isis was present in the earliest Egyptian myths as both sister and wife of Osiris.

Allow me to make an analogy. In christianity there is no 'cult' of Mary, either. However, she remains an important figure in christian mythology and there are churches named in her honor. The automatic assumption that other, earlier, peoples could not have made the same linkage with Isis seems a) bizarre..... and b ) very convenient for people who have already made up their minds.

Now...back to the pissing contest.

Damnit, Arch, why don't you join the 2ist century and stop with all this bible horseshit?

[Guest]

Damnit, Arch, why don't you join the 2ist century and stop with all this bible horseshit?

because the Bible is right.

Typical, arrogant, smug, condescending response which I expected from you

your opinion based upon your interpretation of the printed word, now you see why i can say that dever and finkelstein are wrong.

Allow me to make an analogy. In christianity there is no 'cult' of Mary, either. However, she remains an important figure in christian mythology and there are churches named in her honor

only catholics name churches after Mary or elevate he. christians do not do that.

Because, in the view of Egyptologists, the Isis 'cult' did not emerge until later. While that is true it also seems incredibly irrelevant.

but still even cults can say thetruth on things. i.e. they can say that bush is an idiot. doesn't make them wrong or him intelligent because they said it.

[Minimalist]

only catholics name churches after Mary or elevate he. christians do not do that.

The rest of us consider anyone who believes in jebus to be christians. You'll have to get over your anti-Catholic bias.

Reminds me of comedian, Chris Rock, saying "Black people don't hate Jews.....Black People hate White People. We ain't got time to break you up into little groups!"

[Guest]

your loss.

since i have presented a theory in this thread which undermines finkelstein, why don't you investigate the theory instead of doing 'the club' routine you so hate.

there is plenty of room for discussion.

[Minimalist]

What is the "evidence" to support your theory?

[Guest]

try and refute it first with evidence (not statements based upon a lack thereof). outright dismissal and rejection is not refutation by denial.

[Minimalist]

No, no, no.

You claim to have a theory. What is the evidence to support your theory.

The theory is nonsense with no evidence to support it.

Even Sitchin claims to have "evidence."

[Minimalist]

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/h ... Bible.html

The chill that produced the question at Ben-Gurion University was set off by one of Israeli archaeology's leading biblical minimalists -- a label attached by their colleagues to those who think that very little in the Bible's historical sections is true. The Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog began the flurry with a cover story in the weekend magazine of the October 29, 1999, issue of Ha'aretz, the national daily newspaper.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom," he wrote.

[Guest]

where is his evidence?? it is his opinion based upon information not yet discovered, a lack of evidnece, which we all know is not true nor a valid argument to base one's conclusions.

Mr. Herzog concludes from such findings that the Bible simply should not be used as a historical source. The archaeological practice begun by William Foxwell Albright, who founded the discipline of biblical archaeology in the early part of the 20th century, was that findings in the field should be interpreted in the light of the biblical text. Mr. Herzog's new paradigm is that the Bible should be set aside and the findings interpreted in their own right.

again his belief and rejection of the Bible supports his thesis. he is eliminating important data and using ot to come to false conclusions. but tell the whole story:

That position is rejected by other scholars

It is indeed possible to write history from the Bible," he declared. "It contains primary sources. The lack of evidence in the ground is not sufficient to negate evidence in writing, and the archaeologists need to be reminded of that morning, afternoon, and night."

That position is not held just by historians: Many archaeologists agree

where did he get his false ideas from:

He cites a theory propounded by his Tel Aviv colleague Israel Finkelstein

finkelstein, as it says there, is speaking from theory not fact which means he cannot be taken as aboslute, nor as factual as his theory is based upon his OPINION/INTERPRETATION.

[Minimalist]

where is his evidence?? it is his opinion based upon information not yet discovered, a lack of evidnece, which we all know is not true nor a valid argument to base one's conclusions.

Again, arch, that's a bible thumper lie. They have found well over 100 sites in the eastern hill country which they have surveyed and published and the results are conclusive that the Israelites arose there in the late 12th century BC.

I doubt if any serious archaeologist would give a shit what you think. They would dismiss your ranting as bible-based drivel.


And they would be correct.

[Minimalist]

PS - so far Finkelstein has a hell of a lot more evidence for his theories than you have presented for your's.

[Guest]

so far Finkelstein has a hell of a lot more evidence for his theories than you have presented for your's.

true, right now i have just presented the theory for discussion and commented that more work is needed on it. i am not sure if i can produce any physical evidence, uless i move to egypt but i may be able to dig up quotes from those who thought the same way.

They have found well over 100 sites in the eastern hill country which they have surveyed and published and the results are conclusive that the Israelites arose there in the late 12th century BC.

read the rest of the article, as they give an opposing view on that thought.

[MichelleH]

page test