Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:54 pm

Scary thought.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:54 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:31 pm

Evasion and cowardice noted.

I also do not accept a Flat-Earther's point of view. It is all about the facts, lad, and you do not know them

this is why i ignore people like dr. x, marduk and john. sorryi am in a conversation and you will be put to the side until you grow up

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:42 pm

Data is always limited. That's the nature of archaeology. You never get as much as want.....which applies to lots of things aside from archaeology!

that is why people like finkelsein and dever need to re-phrase their conclusions and not be so close-minded. i can see how the Israelites left no evidence why can't they?

Because there is no hint that they were ever in Egypt.

but there is. it is just that the copehagen school rejects the source.

They take the evidence that has been accumulated from other digs as well as their own and try to make sense of it

maybe the fanatical wing does that but most are like the above quote. i certainly take evidence from many sources before concluding an idea.

Only bible-thumpers are looking for evidence

then don't accuse them of not looking and not asking questions. just because their interpretation differs from yours does it make them unqualified or wrong.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't wet your pants with Jacobovici's presentation of Manfred Bielak's "Jacob seals

its a common name, why would i? maybe that is the reason God changed jacob's name to israel so no confusion would arise from the similarities with the hyksos.

jacob was never a slave but a welcomed guest of the pharaoh, it wasn't till a pharaoh came to power that didn't know joseph that the israelites were urned into slaves.

Or, hebrew as a distinct dialect developed later on. I think that works better, linguistically.

i am willing to be fexible here as the biblical record does not indicate what language abraham spoke (nor his immediate descendants) thus research and investigation is needed before final conclusions can be offered.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:15 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:24 pm

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:35 pm

What the hell is all this drivel? We've had a three day weekend and nothing has happened here except Bible School?

This place looks like a contemporary rendition of "Waiting for Godot".

Continue on kids - archaeology and science tomorrow.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:44 pm

What the hell is all this drivel

hold it-- minimalist and i are stillon track...it is all the interlopers who can't seem to focus on the discussion at hand that are messing things up.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:00 pm

Arch, there all always folks dropping in from the net to join in this biblical bullshit. They come - they go. That's been going on since you and Min. have been doing this.

Nothing new.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:25 pm

Might be a fine time to mention again that there is a spot specifically devoted to biblical bullshit called www.Jesusneverexisted.com.

Join the fun!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:40 pm

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:54 pm

Hello Doctor X - welcome. I know what you're saying about Arch. Truly I do. What you don't know though - you can't know - is that Arch, and the other regular posters here have heard it all before.

There is nothing new under the sun regarding the arguments against him. Folks continue to be drawn to this discussion like a moth to a flame. Most leave angry and frustrated because Arch is just not listening.

Most of the time the discussion remains between Minimalist and Arch, and other posters ignore it for the most part, but invariably there will be those who log in to "set things right". And that's fine as long as it doesn't spill out on the archaeology topics.

Don't be surprised if Arch prefers not to even engage you though because I think even he has gotten weary of the same old thing. I thnk he prefers his daily tit-for-tat with Minimalist.

Enjoy the forum and join us in our other discussions Doc.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:26 pm

Most leave angry and frustrated because Arch is just not listening.

why is it me that has to listen? i can say the same thing about you all.

anyways, the topic at hand is jerusalem and lately the discussion has focused on the discoveries of Mazar (sp) who has an archaeological pedigree far superior to finkelstein and dever.

i re-read the articles i posted and find them quite compelling in illustrating the problem that archaeologists have, especially those who actually seek biblical remains.

they are ignored, shouted down, embarrasseed and the list could go on. which says a lot about the archaeological community in the middle east and it isn't good. so much for being objective, scientifif; a couple of words used repeatedly when religious people make forays into the field yet heartedly ignored when it is convenient for the non-religious.

so if you have something constructive to post concerinng the present topic, feel free otherwise research first before raising subjects that have been asked and answered.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:51 pm

There is nothing inherently wrong with citing the bible as a textual source as it is one of the few available. One does need to keep in mind that its purpose was religious and not historical. Occasionally, by accident probably, it manages to convey some historical fact amidst the moralizing which is its primary purpose.

Even Finkelstein cites it as a textual source when (BIG WHEN, here) the archaeology supports it. One such instance is the Omride center of Jezreel which was built and occupied only by the Omride Dynasty and was subsequently abandoned.

Dever, will go so far as to allow the Book of Judges to give a fair representation of general conditions if not individual deeds for the Early Iron Age beginnings of Israel.

Gone With The Wind is a historical novel. There was no Scarlett O'Hara or Ashley Wilkes. There was, however, a Civil War and there was slavery in the south. The bible has probably less of a connection to real history than the novel but every so often a random fact seems to stray into the narrative.