Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

About the same, I see....

[Minimalist]

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.

You don't want TRUTH...you desperately cling to the outmoded in some vain hope that wishing will make it true. It is why religious fanatics have always murdered those who believe other than they...when they can get a big enough mob together to do the dirty work.

You are a fanatic. A fanatic being one who clings to belief in spite of the facts which are clearly presented. None are so blind as they who will not see.

[Guest]

You are a fanatic. A fanatic being one who clings to belief in spite of the facts which are clearly presented. None are so blind as they who will not see.

i would have to disagree with you on the fanatic part but i really wonder what you contribute here, since 90% of your posts attack me and avoid the topic of archaeology. maybe 1% of your responses actually have anything to do with the subject at hand, the other 9% get lost in the plastering of the pages with some unrelated picture or comic.

my advice to you would be to present something worth talking about beyond the usual baiting of those who disagree with you. i have noticed and realist had noticed that you can only handle people who believe the way you do, & talk the way you want them to. anyone with more than a brain seems to intimidate you as they point out holes in your theories and refuse to submit to your reasoning.

the flaws in your presentation and evidence loom large and anyone with common sense can see how misguided they really are. i poonted out in another topic that i could not see how evolutionary scientists could prove the theory by just measuring the skulls and again there were no takers to explain their process in which they come to their conclusion.

thus one must conclude that evolution depends on filling in the blanks with conjecture sprinkled with a little faith to make it make any sense because you can't explain how it works nor prove the explanations.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...] i really wonder what you contribute here, since 90% of your posts attack me and avoid the topic of archaeology. [...]

ROTFLMAO!!!
Says who...?

[Minimalist]

This entire thread is devoted to posting the findings of modern archaeology. That such findings show that your precious fairy tales are exactly that is not my fault. However, when you sit there like a two year old sticking his fingers in his ears, saying "I'm NOT Listening....LA-LA-LA" you cannot expect to be treated as a rational human being.

Put up some EVIDENCE to support your positions and it will be considered. Even the dear, departed, Jean Marie managed to come up with some actual theories and evidence on occasion. (They were silly or hopelessly out of date but at least she tried which is more than you have ever done.

I'll tell you what your problem is. You do not understand scholarly debate. So when biologists argue about points of evolution or archaeologists like Dever and Finklestein debate points about the origins of the Israelites you think those discussions invalidate the whole theory.

It would be like a village of blind people inviting two veterinarians to look at their elephant. The vets arrive shortly after dark. One says " this is not an elephant, it is a white horse." The other says, " this is not an elephant, it is a beige horse." They agree that when the sun comes up they will decide on the color and go to bed.

You think that because they cannot immediately tell you the color of the horse that it means that the horse is still an elephant. It isn't and all your wishing is not going to change the fact.

When I get around to it I'll recap the list of points of disagreements between Dever and Finklestein. There are several. However, they do not disagree that the proto-Israelites arose in Canaan, in the 13th century BC and that there was therefore no captivity in Egypt, no exodus, no patriarchs, no Sodom and Gomorra, etc., etc.

Deal with it.

[Minimalist]

This story also fits into the category of current biblical archaeology...although again, we see archaeologists falling back on ritual for any site that they cannot explain.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 033106.php

New Discoveries Point to "Cave of John the Baptist" as Important Site in the Time of Isaiah Recently completed digging at Israel's Suba Cave, an archaeological site that is possibly connected with John the Baptist, or Jewish groups of his time has revealed features that deepen the mystery of the site's ancient origins, according to University of North Carolina at Charlotte archaeologist James D. Tabor, associate director of the excavation.

[Guest]

i have actually posted books that present lists of archaeological discoveries that prove the Bible true inthose areas those dicoveries touch on. i willpost them again along with a third one that used an article from the U.S. news and world report that confirms the curse God put on snakes at the Fall of Mankind.

1. Can archaeology prove the new testament by Ralph Muncaster pgs 26ff
2. Can archaeology prove the old testament by Ralph Muncaster pgs 22ff
3. The stones cry out by Randall Price (the mentioning of the U.S. news and world report article can be found on page 22 and it is footnoted as entitled--Snakes didn't always slither 4/28/97 pg 14)

a fourth book you might want to consider is called: Is the Bible True by Jeffery L. Sheler, a religion writer for U.S. news and World Report.

don't ask me to quote anything, for it would remove any doubt from our minds if you looked these up yourself. that way you know i am not fudging on what they wrote.

[Rokcet Scientist]

i have actually posted books that present lists of archaeological discoveries that prove the Bible true inthose areas those dicoveries touch on. i willpost them again along with a third one that used an article from the U.S. news and world report that confirms the curse God put on snakes at the Fall of Mankind.

1. Can archaeology prove the new testament by Ralph Muncaster pgs 26ff
2. Can archaeology prove the old testament by Ralph Muncaster pgs 22ff
3. The stones cry out by Randall Price (the mentioning of the U.S. news and world report article can be found on page 22 and it is footnoted as entitled--Snakes didn't always slither 4/28/97 pg 14)

a fourth book you might want to consider is called: Is the Bible True by Jeffery L. Sheler, a religion writer for U.S. news and World Report.

don't ask me to quote anything, for it would remove any doubt from our minds if you looked these up yourself. that way you know i am not fudging on what they wrote.

Thanks, Arch. Much appreciated.
Let me return the favor.
These books will come you in good stead:
The Angel
The Bell
The Emperor's New Clothes
The Fir Tree
The Happy Family
The Little Match Girl
The Little Mermaid
Little Tuk
The Nightingale
The Old House
Ole Lukoie
The Princess and the Pea (also known as The Real Princess)
The Red Shoes
The Shadow
The Snow Queen
The Steadfast Tin Soldier
The Story of a Mother
The Swineherd
Thumbelina
The Ugly Duckling
The Wild Swans

By Hans Christian Andersen.

[Minimalist]

Let's see....just a quick check on your pal.

First of, why do I suspect that an outfit called "Evidence of God Ministries" might have an agenda!


http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/history1.htm

The authors of the books of the Bible, as well as the people they wrote about, all claimed to gain their strength and inspiration directly from the same God of Israel. These writers are credible because they were known by many people, their accounts were consistent with known historical events and they were not refuted by contemporaries. If we are to believe these people were credible, then their claims are to be taken as credible as well.

The same sort of circular reasoning which early archaeologists used to date/attach any structure they found to something mentioned in the bible. The fallacy begins by the belief that the bible is somehow more than a steaming turd created by phony priests to legitimize their power and position over the people they sought to dominate. (Don't feel special about that....all religion has the same purpose!)

To paraphrase...."We know the bible is true because the people who wrote it were inspired by god...." If that isn't a self-serving, non-scientific statement, I don't know what is. When I have a little more time, I'll see what his "evidence" might be....if any.

[Minimalist]

#2 Your boy says on his website.

An example is the Genesis reference to the Hittite culture at least three times. No historical (written) evidence was found of the Hittites so critics claimed the Hittites were myth until the 1930’s when ruins of the Hittite people were discovered in Central Turkey.

A German expedition was uncovering the Hittite palaces and archives in 1906...not "the1930s." This is just a stupid and careless error as it is easily checked. One has to assume that all of his 'scholarship' is as slipshod.

[Guest]

Thanks, Arch. Much appreciated.
Let me return the favor.
These books will come you in good stead

i see you are not taking this seriously, so ....

Let's see....just a quick check on your pal.

they are not my pals, just books i have read

One has to assume that all of his 'scholarship' is as slipshod

wow! one mistake. i guess you like to throw the baby out with the bath water. so with this precedent, we can hereby throw out all evolutionary theories, all thinking by non-religious people, all their arguments agianst the Bible and so on.

as they make more than one mistake.

[Minimalist]

There is a big difference between ONE MISTAKE and ONE MISTAKE ON THE FIRST ITEM CHECKED.

So far, he is 0 for 1. Let's see what happens when he's played a few games. As I said, if this is what passes for 'scholarship' among religious fanatics, no wonder so many people still believe such nonsense.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Again, it is the cunning application of selective perception.
The magician's precept.
A.k.a. 'slight of hand'...

The movie 'Capricorn One' is a classic illustration.
Entertaining too.

[Guest]

So far, he is 0 for 1. Let's see what happens when he's played a few games. As I said, if this is what passes for 'scholarship' among religious fanatics, no wonder so many people still believe such nonsense.

i don't know. giventhe qualityof your scholarship and those you hype i think i willstickwith the uy who is 0-1. at least he is probably willing to admit the error and correct it instead of hanging on to a theory after it has been proven wrong.

which so many so-called scientists do that are members of your side of the argument. it is amazing how you make a big deal out of a religious person's mistake while glossing over the glaring errors and stubbornness of your own people.

kind of like the pot calling the kettle black or hypocrisy at its best. when you get your own house in order, then come and talk to me.

[Rokcet Scientist]

i don't know.

Had a revelation, Arch?