dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:49 am

That also applies to some meso-american temples/pyramids. Actually more to them than to SA ones.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:05 pm

Loose sand in the sphinx enclosure would not make a difference regarding this runoff erosion. Just as it makes no difference in the subsurface weathering Schoch refers to (which is actually due to exposure to the air, and not to rainwater runoff.) Rain runoff would just sink into the sand and come out wherever downstream, eroding the limestone in the same way that it would were the sand not there.

you sound like you disagree with schoch's dating and thinking, why ? i tend to have doubts about the Khafre dating myself, but then it doesn't really matter to me because i am in a win-win situation from my perspective. just like the bosnian 'pyramids'. it didn't matter if there were or weren't any pyramids there because it only changes secular history and doesn't affect the biblical one.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:09 pm

and doesn't affect the biblical one.

Nothing can affect "biblical history". There is none prior to Omri and Ahab.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:15 pm

Nothing can affect "biblical history". There is none prior to Omri and Ahab.

denial doesn't change the facts.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:24 pm

You haven't a shred of evidence to back up anything prior to about 900 BC and even then, the surviving biblical texts are nothing but condemnations of the Israelite state, which was far superior to anything ever attained by Judah.

One might suspect a little jealousy there.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:40 pm

archaeologist wrote:
denial doesn't change the facts.

A sentiment you would do well to remember yourself.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:38 pm

You haven't a shred of evidence to back up anything prior to about 900 BC

just because you don't accept the reasoning behind the lack of evidence does it mean it didn't happen. kenyon is a prime example of seeing the evidence and refusing to acept it.

schoch here is in the same boat with his dating theory. all he can do is cite weathering and cannot provide any written documentation to back him up, for that matter neither can the egyptologists for their claim.

so i would not place the Bible under a double standard as it just won't work.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:21 pm

just because you don't accept the reasoning behind the lack of evidence does it mean it didn't happen

That, also, is as dumb as your circumcised centurion story.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:25 pm

That, also, is as dumb as your circumcised centurion story.

let me illustrate using schoch's thinking of a pyramid building society. the only evidence he really has is some oral tradition and some weathering, yet he feels the sphynx was erected (along with the pyramids) by some civilization with which left no evidence for their existence.

his thinking is rejected solely based upon the lack of evidence and not because he is wrong. egyptologists cannot state for certain nor provide the proof needed to confirm their thinking either yet many hold to it because the evidence for a building society exists.

so your idea that israel started with Ahab isn't even credible because there is nothing to substantiate such an origination and is solely based upon poor research which eliminates the only sources that actually give the evidence needed to say different.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:41 pm

Do you even read your own bible?

Omri was the founder of the dynasty....Ahab was his son. Unlike your boy, David, Omri and Ahab have managed to make a name for themselves in the records of the nations they fought with. Anyway, lots of things have to happen before a society coalesces into a kingdom. In Judah, these conditions were met after Israel fell and the population was boosted by waves of refugees.

C'mon, Arch. It's embarassing for me to have to correct a bible-thumper.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:59 pm

There are other threads, you know.

Sorry Min. - but there are not. You can review these threads all you want and you will see that :

ALL anger has begun in the Jesus threads.
IT always spills out into the other threads.

Hmmm.....

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:31 pm

Stop that!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:57 pm

Do you even read your own bible?

fortunately for you, i don't remember every word. though i think you would be hard pressed to come up with an account that explains their placement on the throne, without refering to the davidic line of succession.

Anyway, lots of things have to happen before a society coalesces into a kingdom

right at the time of the conquest and settlement prior to Saul's accension to the throne. but you are dealing with an omission i made and not the issue i raised.

i am pointing out like schoch, people dismiss things because of what they do not find and it isn't limited to the Bible but applied whenever somebody challenges the accepted thinking.

i canmake a case for schoch's theory, but it includes bringing in the Bible, which i am trying not to do here. his thinking is plausible to a certain extent and it is quite possible that the sphynx is the one leftover monument of pre-flood days.

it is also possible that it really was built in 2500 b.c. as well. without credible written documentation, we will never prove it.

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:07 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Harte wrote:Loose sand in the sphinx enclosure would not make a difference regarding this runoff erosion. Just as it makes no difference in the subsurface weathering Schoch refers to (which is actually due to exposure to the air, and not to rainwater runoff.) Rain runoff would just sink into the sand and come out wherever downstream, eroding the limestone in the same way that it would were the sand not there.
you sound like you disagree with schoch's dating and thinking, why ? i tend to have doubts about the Khafre dating myself...

I thought I was pretty clear in that I am not qualified to either agree or disagree with what Schoch says.

But I am trying to show here that, despite what many excitable folks may wish to believe, Schoch has definitely not "proven" the antiquity of the Sphinx, not has he "disproven" the conventional dating of the monument. He has just come up with a fairly novel way of interpreting data in order to suggest the possibility that there may be evidence for an older Sphinx, an idea which had been kicked around for a long time among Egyptologists even before Schoch published his ideas, BTW. Of course, in modern times, most of Egyptology had come to some understanding that the dates which were generally accepted were the ones with the most supporting evidence. But there were still some researchers, legitimate researchers, that had their doubts, even before Schoch entered the picture.

No, I don't necessarily disagree with Schoch himself. Nor do I necessarily disagree with his critics. But I do disagree with the chorus of people on various internet forums (perhaps not this one, however) that claim the sphinx has been "proven" to be 7 or 8 thousand years old, or older. Schoch, while he sticks by his analyses, does not himself claim to be correct, he merely claims that his analyses are indicative of an older date and not that his analyses contain the only correct interpretation. IOW, like any decent scientist, Schoch does not claim to have finally "solved" the mystery of the Sphinx.

Harte

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:23 pm

though i think you would be hard pressed to come up with an account that explains their placement on the throne, without refering to the davidic line of succession.

Nonsense. But I am not going to get into here because I don't want to give Beagle any more ammunition.

I'm moving this to the Biblical Archaeology thread.