Current Biblical Archaeology

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:29 am

No one said anything about pop quizzes when I signed up!

My answer is 99..right..right?????

Post by **MichelleH** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:33 am

Very Good Bandit! You're Right!

The test page was to get the board to roll into a new page. I can't believe Arch and Min have been going at it for almost 100 pages.

Talk about stubborn.....(And I mean both of you boys!)

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:12 am

The test page was to get the board to roll into a new page.

I figured that, but I just couldn't resist

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:58 am

100 pages and you could condense it down to probably ten if you omitted the redundancies. Mostly the same old crap. Is there a limit to how many pages a thread can go?

Roberto · Post by **Roberto** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:59 am

I'm beginning to believe this Biblical Archaeological topic should have been called "Mid-Eastern Archaeology". Perhaps then we would not be having these personal debates and accusations when the Bible is brought into reference. But then again, how can one really discuss Mid-Eastern archaeology without bringing the Bible into context?
Personally fellows, I've thouroughly enjoyed stumpling across this Forum. Archaeology is one my loves in life. Unfortunately I took a turn in life 10 years ago and got pulled into another field, hydrography, while working on a 2nd degree in Geology. Finding this Forum, with all the reference reading to these various topics has been a treat. But I do have to say, I'm getting rather bored with all this mud slinging that is going on when it comes down to "Belivers and Non-Belivers." I feel that it has been carried too the extreme. Personally, I am a Scientist and a Christian. And I work hard to maintian the Christina ethics in my life. I feel the Bible is full of historical references, even if it's knowledge can't always be proven by archaeolgical evidence. If we didn't have the Bible, we wouldn't even be having these on going debates. It would all be lost knowledge.
It just goes to shows that such topics as Religion and Politics ALWAYS starts more of an argument, than a debate. It always comes down to a "personal" issue. I do feel that we are all educated and professionals here, and should work harder to keep this Forum at a higher standard.
With all that said, and in all do respects to All members here, I hope this does not insult anyone. I wish ALL the best .... CHEERS!

Post by **MichelleH** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:30 am

Frank queried:

Is there a limit to how many pages a thread can go?

As far as the database is concerned, no limit.

As far as the debate is concerned:

Argumentum ad infinitum... and dare I say Argumentum ad nauseam

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:12 am

archaeologist wrote:
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.

More telling, he believes, is the design of the settlements and the individual homes, which were very different from Canaanite designs.

It's not an opposing thought. I realize you are at a disadvantage because you have not read the book but that is exactly the point that Finkelstein makes. Finkelstein cites the formation of these villages, extensively, as derived from the camps of pastoralists. By disagreeing with Herzog (and also Dever who subscribes to the Canaanite pottery link, among other things) Mazar simply embraces Finkelstein's main position....which doesn't do you and the bible-thumpers any good. True, Mazar tosses up a prayer by suggesting that a 'small group' may have escaped from Egypt but does that really help you? He's saying tht the bible account of a mass exodus is a lie. Finkelstein, Dever and Herzog say your bible is bullshit . Mazar says that it is a grossly inflated lie? Are you comfortable with that?

Okay. Do not dignify your wild speculation with the term 'theory,' then. And don't bother to post "quotes" from other bible thumpers. They are no smarter than you and they have no evidence for any sort of Israelite sojourn in Egypt, either.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:01 pm

Okay. Do not dignify your wild speculation with the term 'theory,' then. And don't bother to post "quotes" from other bible thumpers. They are no smarter than you and they have no evidence for any sort of Israelite sojourn in Egypt, either

then you don't quote anyone from your side of the debate. i will contiue to use the sources i deem necessary whether bible thumper or not.

True, Mazar tosses up a prayer by suggesting that a 'small group' may have escaped from Egypt but does that really help you

from my readings, it does, as i can accept the reality and possibility that the israelites until their entrance into the promised land, did not produce their own cultural wares and used egyptian products up till that time when they started using their own creative preferences.

remember after the 10th plague, the egyptians gave to the israelites, their own wealth to take with them, which would have been made in the egyptian style and reflect the culture of that time.

thus along the exodus journey, the israelites would be using and discarding egyptian evidence not israeli ones. so again the evidence being discovered would reflect egyptian culture not israeli.

besides 40 years of wandering does not allow one to stop and set up shop and produce one's own products thus they could not leave behind things that are indicative to their own brand of culture.

Finkelstein, Dever and Herzog say your bible is bullshit . Mazar says that it is a grossly inflated lie? Are you comfortable with that?

you don't get it, i don't care what they say about the Bible because it is my choice what to believe and not theirs to make for me. since i side and believe the Bible i have a better view of their actions and conclusions and what is influencing them.

i know that they are using a limited perspective because they refuse to accept parts of the Biblical account and that decision is reflected in their work and where they choose to investigate. that is their decision i don't have to agree with themas they are not the final word on the matter.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:06 pm

Argumentum ad infinitum... and dare I say Argumentum ad nauseam

100 pages and you could condense it down to probably ten if you omitted the redundancies. Mostly the same old crap

your hints are not lost but i would like for minimalist to concede the fact that what i have proposed over the last 15 pages has merit and is a possibility. then we can move on to other areas of biblical archaeology.

Talk about stubborn.....(And I mean both of you boys!)

stubborn?? this is the only thread where i can find real discussion (well at least some of the time) even thoughi disagree with him about finkelstein and dever, i still find information that helps me. i just wish he would find some different archaeologists to quote instead of making those two his Bible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:06 pm

So you cling like a hungry squirrel to the last acorn on earth when it comes to the silly-ass Flood story but you're willing to discount your bible because the evidence shows that the exodus story as recounted therein is a total pile of horseshit?

You're very selective for a Fundy Fanatic. You'll probably burn in hell for being an apostate.

God doesn't like them, you know.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:10 pm

your hints are not lost but i would like for minimalist to concede the fact that what i have proposed over the last 15 pages has merit and is a possibility

What you have proposed is complete and total shit and you do not have a shred of evidence to support it.

Real archaeologists have some evidence to argue over and while they may be wrong they at least have something to debate.

You are saying that the reason there is no evidence is that slaves do not leave evidence! Convenient. You are worse than Jacobovici. He may be psychotic but at least he tries to point to artifacts.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:42 pm

but you're willing to discount your bible because the evidence shows that the exodus story as recounted therein is a total pile of horseshit?

???????????? i am not discounting the Bible at all when it comes to the exodus, i am just proposing something that would be inline with the Biblical account.

i haven't proven anything yet but like any archaeologist or scientist, i am theorizing first then investigating later.

What you have proposed is complete and total shit and you do not have a shred of evidence to support it.

i guess we are in for another 100 pages of argument....

no, you don't like it because it makes sense and undermines dever's and finkelstein's position, who base their conclusions on a limited physical area of excavation (israel not 100 towns). for themto be right, they would have to start digging in the proper place in egypt and the exodus trail and find something that definitively proves the israelites arose as they say.

absence of evidence will not fly nor qualify in refuting this point because i have shown that it is highly probable and possible that there would be minimal evidence.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:54 pm

???????????? i am not discounting the Bible at all when it comes to the exodus, i am just proposing something that would be inline with the Biblical account.

You'd better go back and read it again before they throw you out of the blooming congregation.

absence of evidence will not fly nor qualify in refuting this point because i have shown that it is highly probable and possible that there would be minimal evidence.

As I said, how convenient! But real archaeologists have no absense of evidence...they have a surfeit of evidence showing when and where Israel arose...and it wasn't in Egypt!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:03 pm

But real archaeologists have no absense of evidence

yes they do as they fail to take into account many facts. after the crossing of jordon, the israelites spent a lot of time in conquest which means that they did not have the time nor the ability to start production until they had finished conquering the land.

thus any evidence for their arisal would be delayed further still until they came to a point where they could produce enough of their own products which in turn would be discarded and prove their existence thousands of years later.

saying there was no conquest is not refutation but denial and a willful omittance of factors that need to be considered and included in one's thesis.

Post by **MichelleH** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:50 pm

another test page.....