Current Biblical Archaeology

[Guest]

well it seems finkelstein has been embarrassed and discredited once again. frank questioned why i don't listen to him well, he doesn't speak the truth, as is illustrated buy the following article.

since we have moved on to the topic of Jerusalem, we might as well start here presenting what looks like the proof that minimalist wanted:

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusa ... usalem.asp

Despite her sound hypothesis and impeccable credentials, she couldn't find any financial backers, as if no one in the academic world really wanted to find David's palace. It would just be too politically complicated. It's no wonder, when even mainstream archaeologists are inclined to play down finds which might be considered too highly charged with biblical or historical accuracy

then the following quote backs up what jacobovich illustrated inhis documentary and which i confirmed by reporting that i had come across such an attitude in my own readings but was dismissed by the faithful skeptical onthis board.

here is real world confirmation of such an attitude and agenda:

As spokesperson for the Committee Against the Desecration of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, Mazar has for the past six years tried to alert the world to the vandalism being perpetrated by the Muslim Waqf, who have their own agenda of destroying remnants of proof of Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem, and who consistently deny that there ever was a First or Second Temple.

(read the next few paragraphs to get the whole picture)

[Guest]

here is a corroborrating article to back up my last post:

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/arti ... em1202.txt

The evidence seems to agree surprisingly well with Mazar’s claim that this could be David’s palace. The location, size, style, and dating of the building all match the textual description. Moreover, there are no finds that suggest the contrary, such as the idolatrous statuettes or ritual crematoria found in contemporary Phoenician settlements. Furthermore, the building appears in an ancient world where such constructions were extremely rare and represented the greatest sort of public works. Finally, the evidence fits well with previous archaeological finds from the site.

[Minimalist]

This is old news and was debunked years ago. Mazar has been singing the same song since 1997 or so.

She's the only one who buys it and that's because she works for a right-wing Jewish group which insists on biblical finds.....just like Albright and his ilk from a century ago.

[Minimalist]

Naturally, many archaeologists, having been trained in a scholarly world wary of religious enthusiasts, will be extremely reluctant to identify any new archaeological find with particulars found in the Bible.

And well they should be!

[Guest]

This is old news and was debunked years ago

typical dismissal andif you read the articles, not everyone dismisses it and no it was not debunked.

put up some sources to back up your claim, instead of sitting there like some tyrannical judgmentalist. you don't discuss unless you hear what you want to hear

Mazar has been singing the same song since 1997 or so

obviously you didn't do any reading as that was mentioned inthe articles but guess what, it doesn't matter it stillshows construction during the time period you so readily ignore.

[Guest]

***

[john]

In less dispute are numerous figurines of a woman with big boobs holding them up. Dever concludes that this was some sort of fertility cult which the hotshot priests in Jerusalem would have liked to have suppressed but the king wasn't stupid enough to piss off the women.

The Keel & Uehlinger reference is an exhaustive reference on iconography of the region--painful to read but pretty complete. It does not include coin, so it does not include a depitction of YHWH. They give a very good treatment of the Kuntillet material. Anyways, they give a pretty good treatment of the representations of Asherah.

Now, at some point--certainly by the composition of texts like the Deuteronomistic History--there was a concerted effort to suppress religion beyond central control--all of that polytheism and worship in local regions and "high places." However, it appears clear that that polytheism existed far later than earlier scholars have wanted to accept.

Why else would someone bless in the name of Asherah if she was not accorded the ability to respond.

Someone tell me if the Fundi ever answers a question or cites evidence. I find it much easier to skim through the compost and denial.

--J.D.

no.


j

[Minimalist]

Mazar penned an article in 1997 about "David's Palace" and then, after she got funding from an unltranationalist party went digging and found exactly what she predicted....although even Mazar was enough of an archaeologist to say that she "could have found" David's palace. Now, that is true. It could also have been Hezekiah's outhouse!

It is all reminiscent of the days when every rock Albright turned up had been pissed on by some biblical king or prophet!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01944.html

The excavation, on land owned by a private organization that has been moving Jewish settlers into the Arab neighborhood, is being funded by a Jerusalem research institute that promotes policy to strengthen Israel's Jewish character and by a wealthy American Jewish investor.

Her quest began with an essay she wrote for a 1997 edition of the Biblical Archaeology Review. Mazar stated that a "careful examination of the Biblical text combined with sometimes unnoticed results of modern archaeological excavations in Jerusalem enable us, I believe, to locate the site of King David's palace."

Finkelstein's comment - based on the fact that there is nothing tying Mazar's find to David or anyone else.

"This is the missing link we have been looking for. It represents the first step in the rise of Jerusalem to prominence in the 9th century," he said. "Why does it have to be the palace of David? Once you bring that in you sound like something of a lunatic."

But religious people don't mind looking like lunatics.....do they, arch?

[Guest]

But religious people don't mind looking like lunatics.....do they, arch?

right now i donot think she is looking like a lunatic rather like a person finding the correct evidence to support her desire to explore the site for confirmation.

she based her location on kenyon's discoveries and found something that has been missing for generations. for you, your problem is:

The Bible Unearthed n have argued that the biblical accounts of Jerusalem as the seat of a great and united monarchy under the rule of David and Solomon are false. If Mazar’s hypothesis proves right, it would go a long way toward proving Finkelstein and the others wrong.

i am sure this is why you have taken the stance that you have. for meit would go a long ways in confirming faith in the biblical record. i am happy she thinks this is what it is but i am also enough of a person to have restraint and wait for more evidence.

but with the following you will see that even if it is not the palace, it does confirm the biblical record:

Additionally, the building is positioned directly on bedrock along the city’s northern edge with no archaeological layers beneath it. This implies that the structure, built two millennia after the city’s founding, constituted a new, northward expansion of the city’s limits, as described in the biblical account

thus the implications are huge no matter how you look at it.

[Minimalist]

thus the implications are huge no matter how you look at it.

If some bible thumping jackass told you that he'd found the reed basket that Moses floated down the Nile in, you'd piss your pants with joy, jump up and down a few times and shout Hallelujah.

You're far too ready to believe anything these phonies tell you.

[Guest]

If some bible thumping jackass told you that he'd found the reed basket that Moses floated down the Nile in, you'd piss your pants with joy, jump up and down a few times and shout Hallelujah.

i doubt they would even be able to prove that it was his if they found it.

but since she has had to struggle for ten years to get a fair 'hearing' on this, i think this experience reflects 'the club' in action. "this can't be tru because it proves these people wrong" it is a very close-minded approach to discoveries that bring light to the past.

i think she is correct in her thinking that people do not want that time period unearthed as it forces those naysayers to confront their own process of interpretation and look closer at the biblical record and finding it valid while they are lacking.

You're far too ready to believe anything these phonies tell you.

how is she a phony? she is a third generation archaeologist, plus she is a wido of another. you complain that i don't use archaeologists then when i use qualified ones, you complain. sorry but this time you have put yourself on a limb you can't get down from.

[marduk]

what are you talking about Arch
the book of the Exodus today has been heavily edited down through the years as more discoveries have come to light to make it accurate
haven't you ever read the Septuagint
it was after all the version that the latin Bible (i.e. yours) was originally based on
would you like to discuss some of the changes made between the modern Bible and this original and try to explain away the horrendous mistakes made in its content befaore modern scientific method proved them mistakes that could only exist in a fictional work ?

I dare ya

[Minimalist]

how is she a phony

In any crime 'follow the money.' Look who put up the money for her dig.

She tried to hedge her bet by saying "it could be" or "I may have found" but the bible-thumpers won't accept that. There are no gray areas when it comes to impressing the followers of the Church of the Incredibly Gullible (which is all churches.)

Just like the clowns who pick up a stick in Turkey and pronounce it part of the Ark. When the C14 test comes back and the stick dates to 1000 AD you never hear them publicize that with the same fervor as the original. The damage has been done and gullible fools think that silly story is true.

They do not care about truth, arch. They care about headlines to dazzle the foolish.

[Minimalist]

i doubt they would even be able to prove that it was his if they found it.

You have demonstrated that your "level of proof" for bible bullshit is shockingly low.

[Guest]

***