Why so complimentary?archaeologist19 wrote:you are all the same closed minded, intolerant and hypocrits. your pompous positioning clouds your reason and blinds you to the facts.
Current Biblical Archaeology
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Guest
sorry for the rant but it gets frustrating to hear you all say how bigoted, closeminded, intolerant, and so on the religious world is to your views , yet the very first opportunity yo get to change things, you opt for censorship and the exact same 'ideals' you complain against.
you are only happy if you have discussions that tell you what you want to hear and nothing else. you are too afraid to have anything other than your own theory discussed which tells me that you do not have the answers nor the truth. if you weren't so afraid and spiteful, there may be room for good discussion.
to show you how wrong you are about the religious side, here is a quote from John D. Currid's book, 'Doing archaeology in the land of the Bible':
"historically, archaeology has been the work of Biblical scholars, such as Albright, Gluek, and Wright. These men did not sacrifice science but made important scientific contributions even though their main field was Biblical studies." pg. 35
none of the people you have quoted have ever shown such generosity in their work nor objectivity.
you are only happy if you have discussions that tell you what you want to hear and nothing else. you are too afraid to have anything other than your own theory discussed which tells me that you do not have the answers nor the truth. if you weren't so afraid and spiteful, there may be room for good discussion.
to show you how wrong you are about the religious side, here is a quote from John D. Currid's book, 'Doing archaeology in the land of the Bible':
"historically, archaeology has been the work of Biblical scholars, such as Albright, Gluek, and Wright. These men did not sacrifice science but made important scientific contributions even though their main field was Biblical studies." pg. 35
none of the people you have quoted have ever shown such generosity in their work nor objectivity.
-
Rokcet Scientist
So? We should bend deeply before them?archaeologist wrote:[...] to show you how wrong you are about the religious side, here is a quote from John D. Currid's book, 'Doing archaeology in the land of the Bible':
"historically, archaeology has been the work of Biblical scholars, such as Albright, Gluek, and Wright. These men did not sacrifice science but made important scientific contributions even though their main field was Biblical studies." pg. 35 [...]
And conveniently forget that in/by their Inquisition these 'biblical scholars' decapitated and burnt every freethinker they could find?
Naah, you guys had our trust once. And you guys abused it BIG time.
And you, Arch, will pay the price for that until eternity!
-
Frank Harrist
Ok here's the bottom line. You don't push your religious horse shit on me and I won't push my evolutionist theory on you. So lets just not teach our kids anything. Let them figure it out for themselves. Too many blanks to fill in and we might be wrong. Lets just be cowards and let them come up with their own explanations or just accept the bible or the koran or some other horseshit blindly on faith. Then they won't have to think at all. The preacher will tell them everything they need to know. Yeah that's the way it should be. Since science has so many holes lets just give it up altogether and let some religion explain everything. Yeah the dark ages weren't so bad. If praying don't cure the diseased then it must be god's will that this person should die. Yeah it's all god's will. (Please note that I do not capitalize the word god). Yeah and if your god says something different than my god then all your people need to die so lets have a holy war and get rid of all the non-believers and infidels. That'll be so much better than doing nasty old science. Right?
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Frank Harrist
Agreed. Nothing we say sinks in. I'm tired of wasting my energy typing. It's all like water on a duck's back. Rolls right off. I bet his ass is watertight too.Rokcet Scientist wrote:Problem is he does push his religious horse shit on us and so continously poisons our more or less scientific debate.
The guy is a forum terrorist.
-
Leona Conner
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: Tennessee
-
Frank Harrist
Right! Everybody ignore archie and lets get back to discussing real archaeology.Leona Conner wrote:Maybe we should all just ignore him. I've given up reading any thread that shows hi name as being posted last. So are archaeology has hardly be discussed in the last several months, since he joined. I can hear that same b.s. anywhere here in East Tennessee.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
As usual with you, arch, a little knowledge is not only dangerous but damned to be erroneous. Albright and Wright are cited for their work in Dever's book (Dever was a student of Wright's who was in turn the successor to Albright!) and Dever has served as the Director of both the Nelson Glueck School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the W. F Albright Institute of Archaeological Research also in Jerusalem. Far from ignoring the efforts of these men, Dever carefully recounts their theories and then patiently explains ( although probably not patiently enough for the likes of you!) how those early theories of 'biblical conquest' or 'peaceful infiltration' have been superceded by modern evidence and dating. This is not portrayed as a slap at any of those earlier researchers. Their biggest problem (much like your new pal, Currid, who is a Biblical Studies professor!) is that they give the bible some sort of credence because it is the bible....as if that gives it any sort of claim to the truth which can not be substantiated by actually doing the work!
Dever has an extensive section of his book dedicated to a place by place study of 31 of the sites that the Israelites allegedly conquered. It reads like a travelogue...except it is a travelogue of the 7th century BC, not the 13th. In only 3 of the 31 is there any evidence of an actual habitation in the 13th century. Most of the sites were established much later but the bible authors, lacking any sense of history, assumed that what was there in their time had always been there and so when they made up their glorious history for Israel they simply concocted the story based on what they saw around them.
There are so many holes in your precious bible that if it were a boat it would be on the bottom of the river.
Keep bailing, arch.
Dever has an extensive section of his book dedicated to a place by place study of 31 of the sites that the Israelites allegedly conquered. It reads like a travelogue...except it is a travelogue of the 7th century BC, not the 13th. In only 3 of the 31 is there any evidence of an actual habitation in the 13th century. Most of the sites were established much later but the bible authors, lacking any sense of history, assumed that what was there in their time had always been there and so when they made up their glorious history for Israel they simply concocted the story based on what they saw around them.
There are so many holes in your precious bible that if it were a boat it would be on the bottom of the river.
Keep bailing, arch.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Frank, Leona, R/S, I respectfully disagree with all of you.
Ignorance should be confronted not ignored. You allow this bible thumper to set the tone of the debate when you should simply make use of the facts that are there to let him know that you will not buy his particular brand of bible-based fertilizer. There is no significant difference between Christian fanatics, Moslem fanatics and Jewish fanatics, all of whom would far prefer to live in an age of fantasy than to confront the real world.
You know, our beloved christian psychos (and we have one in the White House) think there is no point to worrying about such things as global warming because, WTF, Jesus is coming back and that will be the end of that so why worry about rising sea levels.
Well, if Jesus comes back he had damn well better bring a mop and a bucket because things will be getting wet.
Ignorance should be confronted not ignored. You allow this bible thumper to set the tone of the debate when you should simply make use of the facts that are there to let him know that you will not buy his particular brand of bible-based fertilizer. There is no significant difference between Christian fanatics, Moslem fanatics and Jewish fanatics, all of whom would far prefer to live in an age of fantasy than to confront the real world.
You know, our beloved christian psychos (and we have one in the White House) think there is no point to worrying about such things as global warming because, WTF, Jesus is coming back and that will be the end of that so why worry about rising sea levels.
Well, if Jesus comes back he had damn well better bring a mop and a bucket because things will be getting wet.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
your key word there is fanatic. i am not a fanatic but one who lolkks for the truth, which you and your buddies cannot provide.There is no significant difference between Christian fanatics, Moslem fanatics and Jewish fanatics
i know who dever is and his position but it all boils downto belief and interpretationof the facts at hand. one who does not believe is less inclined to provide any evidence contrary to their belief.As usual with you, arch, a little knowledge is not only dangerous but damned to be erroneous.
i don't doubt that evidence you mention for dever , he actually believes but that doesn't mean that i have to agree with him nor accept his interpretation if i thnk he has erred.
which i do.
again modern dating is arbitrary at best as it is based upon thoeries impossible to actually prove. no one knows for sure if the half life figures are really accurate. at best, they are products of a consensus which leaves room for error and makes the belief in their accuracy a slippery foundation.by modern evidence and dating
modern evidence is at best just an interpretation of many artifacts subject to many biased influences on both sides of the fence. though with the discovery of the name Goliath at approx. the same time period as the Biblical giant, we know that the Bible was accurate in using that name at that time.
Which again proves my point that archaeology proves the Bible and adds to its credibility, and not the reverse.
-
Frank Harrist
Bob, you can talk to this idiot until the cows come home and he'll just deny the facts and squirm around with all his holy mumbo-jumbo and effectively call you and all the scientists who ever had a theory liars. He's one of those stubborn morons who don't believe anything if he can't look it up in his holy bullshit bible. He's blind, deaf, and stupid to anything but his own religious convictions and talking to him is a waste of time. You go ahead and waste your time if you want. I'm done. It's like arguing with a freakin' reetard.
-
Rokcet Scientist
-
Frank Harrist
-
Guest
all i can say to the previous couple replies is: realist was right
then , frank, no one is twisting your arm to answer and you have said the same thing over and over yet you keep replying. so obviously your word means nothing.
but one can see your bias influences your opinion thus whatever you bring to the table is tainted and basically worthless.
i would leave but there is no one to take my place and i really don't want to give you the satisfaction that you may have chased me out. you haven't. all you have done is prove my points (and realist's points also) and you are close-minded, narrow-minded, discriminating, intolerant and whatever other words you use to describe the religous people who take a different position than what you favor.
my observation of you all (that is most those who chose to participate in these particuloar topics) is that you think you are being scholarly, you thinkj you are being open-minded or scientific but in reality none of you have any answers and are stumbling around in the dark.
you reject anything that ends your little game because that means your fun ends or that you have to adjust your thinking away from your unbelief towards a religious conclusion.
anyways we will see how long i will stay, you never know
then , frank, no one is twisting your arm to answer and you have said the same thing over and over yet you keep replying. so obviously your word means nothing.
but one can see your bias influences your opinion thus whatever you bring to the table is tainted and basically worthless.
i would leave but there is no one to take my place and i really don't want to give you the satisfaction that you may have chased me out. you haven't. all you have done is prove my points (and realist's points also) and you are close-minded, narrow-minded, discriminating, intolerant and whatever other words you use to describe the religous people who take a different position than what you favor.
my observation of you all (that is most those who chose to participate in these particuloar topics) is that you think you are being scholarly, you thinkj you are being open-minded or scientific but in reality none of you have any answers and are stumbling around in the dark.
you reject anything that ends your little game because that means your fun ends or that you have to adjust your thinking away from your unbelief towards a religious conclusion.
anyways we will see how long i will stay, you never know