The Exodus Decoded

[Minimalist]

My problem with that, Arch, to be honest is that Garstang has been overturned.

I realize that you prefer his version because it fits with your pet theory but it also dates from a time when, as we have discussed before, archaeology was a thinly disguised excuse for bible fanatics to specifically search for 'proof' that the bible was 'right.' As happened time and time again, they substituted religious zeal for evidence and always found what they were looking for.

To a very large extent, by creating falsely high expectations for bible accuracy they set the stage for its subsequent downfall. You blame Finkelstein, but he did not create the illusion that the bible was 'true.'

Anyway, if there is something you want to say about Garstang, go ahead.

[Guest]

***

[Guest]

My problem with that, Arch, to be honest is that Garstang has been overturned.

unfortunately i can't challenge you on that without using bryant woods, as my research has turned up very little information except biographical sketches or brief over views.

I realize that you prefer his version because it fits with your pet theory

i wanted to read his eviedence, thinking and view his process before we moved into kathleen kenyon. pretty hard to compare her conclusions when the original is lacking.

As happened time and time again, they substituted religious zeal for evidence and always found what they were looking for

to an extent that may be true but the reverse can be said of kenyon. her lack of belief led her to create a fictitious time period for the destruction of jerusalem, misleading many modern scholars.

[Minimalist]

But Kenyon has been upheld by later studies....and carbon dating. You always wish to turn back the clock to a time when the historical primacy of the bible seemed to have been established through a combination of wishful thinking and poor science.

It is unrealistic.

[Guest]

But Kenyon has been upheld by later studies....

that is misleading as her views were only accepted because before hand she had completed some good work. she was not scrutinized as thoroughly as others have been.

and carbon dating

not to be trusted as anyone could manipulate the samples to get the date they want. moot point.

You always wish to turn back the clock

no i want to read it for myself and not take other people's word for it.

[Guest]

***

[ed]

[

and carbon dating

not to be trusted as anyone could manipulate the samples to get the date they want. moot point.

That is amazing

[ed]

My problem with that, Arch, to be honest is that Garstang has been overturned.

I realize that you prefer his version because it fits with your pet theory .

Just for the sake of accuracy. What he puts forward are not theories in any widely accepted sense. They are speculations.

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 BC, in confirmation, but like much early biblical archaeology, his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archeologists support.[1][2] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC plus or minus 38 years.(Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)[3][4] Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is more secure than ever. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time. Scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain how the Israelites arrived around 1550 BC but settled four centuries later and devise a new biblical chronology that corresponds.

Like most bible-thumpers, Arch wants to pick and choose from the menu of available finds. Garstang, btw, was not the earliest. He went out to Jericho to disprove the earlier findings of a team which had concluded that Jericho was unoccupied during the Late Bronze Age....exactly what modern scholarship has confirmed.

[Guest]

his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions

nothing wrong withusing the Bible as you cannot eliminate data and expect to come to the correct solution.

Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archeologists support

of course she is accepted, she threw out the Bible and came to conclusions based upon what she did not find. given her archaeological dig style, that is not hard to do. she had no basis for her dates, they were pickedout of thin air.

Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration

right. until Wood confirmed Garstang, the date was okay but when the biblical record is confirmed the date becomes faulty. go peddle that elsewhere.

Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.

notice a pattern? obviously Garstang and Wood are correct and Kenyon and friends are wrong unless a 1550 date was when the exodus happened which would bring Thera back into play.

Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is more secure than ever

sorry but i dispute that.

[Minimalist]

sorry but i dispute that.

No one gives a flying fuck what you dispute. You're just a bible thumper.

You have nothing to add to the archaeological discussion because you believe in fairy tales.

[Guest]

since c-14 has been brought in earlier than i wanted i now have to go to the following and point ut some questionable practices:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ans ... ntwood.php

In fact, Kenyon found no evidence at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.

conclusion based upon what she did not find. corroboration for James Long's critique of kenyon's conclusions.

Dr. Bryant G. Wood proposed that Garstang was right all along. He proposed that the termination of City IV Jericho be redated from ca. 1550 B.C. to ca. 1400 B.C. He argued that a reanalyis of pottery shards excavated from City IV, stratigraphic considerations, scarab evidence, and a single radiocarbon date all converged "to demonstrate that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., not 1550 B.C.E. as Kenyon maintained."

Wood bases his conclusions on the evidence found; far more substantial than kenyon's work.

Pitir bienkowski rejects this conclusion not because of the evidence but the length of the confirmation of Garstang:

He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion.

yet when refutation was even shorter, nary a word is spoken:

Bruins and van der Plicht recognized the results of their work held a serious implication for Wood's theory. They devoted only one sentence to this implication

thus if four lines is too short then 1 is just unacceptable and not proof of refutation.

then we have the convenience of the british museum's actions:

Unfortunately, this date was later retracted by the British Museum, along with dates of several hundred other samples

when evidence was discovered that confirmed both Wood and Garstang, it is then recalled because of a problem in the calibration. yea right...

The British Museum found that their radiocarbon measurement apparatus had gone out of calibration for a period of time, and thus had yielded incorrect dates during that period. The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.

another reason we cannot trust carbon dating or the people who operate the machine. it also corroborrtes my contention of the corruptibilityof the whole process.

Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned. To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction. Of course, this is not impossible.

a minor detail that works for Wood.

These depict Egypt as a stable, properous nation at the very time the traditional biblical chronology date for the Exodus says Egypt should be a nation devastated by plagues.

this assumes the data is correct and not fudged. if the pharaoh was still alive, as humphreys says, then the stability would still be there just as america, though devastated by katrina was still stable though a partof it was in ruins.

Having settled the dispute over the date of City IV Jericho's destruction and having demonstrated that Wood's chronology is not valid, we are left with the problem we started with

that is not true nor is the issue settled. for kenyon andher supporters to be right, the exodus must have happened in 1550 b.c. if it didn't then they are wrong.

then to muddy the waters:

Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., has proposed an alternate solution, one that solves these problems and does justice to both biblical and secular scientific evidence. He has shown that the correct biblical chronology date for the Conquest is ca. 2400 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. By this solution, it is the ca. 2400 B.C. destruction at Jericho, shown in the charts above, which must be credited to Joshua

[Guest]

then to show that Wood is not just some uneducated bible thumper here is a brief biography onthe man, note his educational institutions:

Dr Bryant G. Wood, B.S., M.S., M.A., Ph.D.
Creationist Archaeologist (and engineer)

Bryant Wood attended Syracuse University, graduating with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, later earning a M.S. in mechanical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy NY. In 1973 he left General Electric to pursue Biblical and archaeological studies resulting in an M.A. in Biblical History from the University of Michigan in 1974 and a Ph.D. in Syro-Palestinian archaeology from the University of Toronto in 1985. He is currently Director of the Associates for Biblical Research, Ephrata PA, and editor of their quarterly publication Bible and Spade. Dr. Wood is a specialist in Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age. He is author of The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages (1990), as well as numerous articles on archaeological subjects. Dr. Wood received international media attention for his research on ancient Jericho, which demonstrated the historicity of the Biblical account of the capture of the city by the Israelites.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/557.asp

[Frank Harrist]

then to show that Wood is not just some uneducated bible thumper here is a brief biography onthe man, note his educational institutions:

Dr Bryant G. Wood, B.S., M.S., M.A., Ph.D.
Creationist Archaeologist (and engineer)

Bryant Wood attended Syracuse University, graduating with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, later earning a M.S. in mechanical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy NY. In 1973 he left General Electric to pursue Biblical and archaeological studies resulting in an M.A. in Biblical History from the University of Michigan in 1974 and a Ph.D. in Syro-Palestinian archaeology from the University of Toronto in 1985. He is currently Director of the Associates for Biblical Research, Ephrata PA, and editor of their quarterly publication Bible and Spade. Dr. Wood is a specialist in Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age. He is author of The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages (1990), as well as numerous articles on archaeological subjects. Dr. Wood received international media attention for his research on ancient Jericho, which demonstrated the historicity of the Biblical account of the capture of the city by the Israelites.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/557.asp

Just another bible thumping hack. J/K arch his credentials are more impressive than most of the goofs you trot out here.

[Guest]

J/K arch his credentials are more impressive than most of the goofs you trot out here.

i think i am missing something here. whom are you referring to?