Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat May 13, 2006 10:25 am

Horseshit.

There are 2 reasons why you don't post 'evidence.'

One, there isn't any, and two, you don't want the pious fools who insist that the bible happened exactly as written to be exposed as pious fools.

BTW, play with the dates all you like. You will not find a nearly 1,000 year period which does not run into some actual evidence which proves it never happened.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 14, 2006 3:14 am

Horseshit.

no, just look over the past posts and you will see the consistancy in your response. you only listen to what you want to hear and dismiss all else because some unbelieving person says that is the way it is.

how do you expect to find evidence if you only listen to those who do not care about religion or religious sources. james long makes a good point about that and it is ridiculous how non-religious people set up criteria that only makes it possible for their point of view to be expressed or talked about.

talk about slanting the playing field, it is made so easy to dismiss other alternatives, much like the 'scientific' debates concerning evolution. it is all about having it your way so i do not care if i provide the evidence you want or not, i know what the reaction will be already.

read james long's book-- the riddle of the exodus-- you may be surprised and you may not but he does list in the appendixes some more discoveries supporting scriptures

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun May 14, 2006 11:25 am

As Mark Twain says: Sacred cow makes the best hamburger

I don't know what you expect. You trot out a faith-based belief system and insist it is factual yet you can provide no evidence that it ever happened.

Merely quoting some pious asshole's opinion that "oh, yes! it's all true" means exactly NOTHING. But that is all you seem to have, aside from trotting out the obsolete theories of early 20th centuries 'scholars' who went to Palestine with a shovel in one hand and the fuckin' bible in the other. They of course, in your myopic world view, have no agenda unlike the modern scholars who have used modern techniques to supercede all those early wishful-thinking finds, thereby consigning your precious book of magic to the dustbin of history. In his second book Finkelstein gives a pretty good account of how biblical preconceptions tainted those early finds....they used the bible to date their finds and then declared, in a circular reasoning kind of way that they had found PROOF of the bible. Thankfully, most of us have moved beyond such silliness.

Understand that I don't give a rat's ass what you believe. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese or that George Bush's IQ hits triple-digits and it is no skin off of my nose. But when your kind starts wanting to corrupt science education with your stupidity then you go to far and must be opposed at every step of the way.

If you don't want to hear your beliefs savaged then stop promoting magic and faith as substitutes for science.

Like I said elsewhere, there has to be a bible-thumper board somewhere where you will fit right in.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:58 am

I don't know what you expect. You trot out a faith-based belief system and insist it is factual yet you can provide no evidence that it ever happened

i really like to know where you have been to evenconsider such an idea. i have trotted out evidence but you run into the finkelstein/dever cave and hide your head in the sand.

or you just find some little tidbit to exxagerate and claim it has no credibility. when in reality it has as much credibility as those you continue to quote.

it is amazing how you would look to the unreligious to prove that which is religious, well Holy. it just isn't going to happenunless that unreligious person has a divine experience.

i can see where the 'establishment' places dates sothat it would be impossible to accept the Biblical account because they do not want to prove the Bible and waste their whole life's work.

ego is a dangerous thing

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 15, 2006 5:02 am

No, arch, you have given nothing but Jesus shit from the word 'go.' I repeat, the opinions of other bible-thumping zealots carry no weight unless they produce some artifiacts to back up their claims and neither they nor you seem capable of doing so.

Find an inscription from King David's Empire in Syria and everyone will be forced to reconsider their positions.

Find evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt and everyone will be forced to reconsider their positions.

Merely stating over and over what the bible says counts for shit. We all know what the bible says and we are NOT impressed.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:05 pm

Find an inscription from King David's Empire in Syria and everyone will be forced to reconsider their positions.

it isn't my job to prove the Bible true to your satisfaction... as i have said much evidence has been provided you just don't want to accept it. without faith you will never be satisfied.

by the way James Long mentions israel finkelstein in his book, but only in the part that discusses archeological evidence. his was an easy read and did not go into scholarly details but he does make good points worth investigating.

everyone will be forced to reconsider their positions

the Bible isn't about forcing people, you do get to freely choose.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:50 pm

his was an easy read and did not go into scholarly details

Why am I not surprised?

it isn't my job to prove the Bible true to your satisfaction... as i have said much evidence has been provided you just don't want to accept it. without faith you will never be satisfied.

Faith is the absence of 'evidence.' That's your problem. You want it to be true so you think that is all that is needed.

Better go look for some inscriptions because right now the only way that David ever got to Syria was as a tourist....or a migrant worker!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 15, 2006 8:06 pm

Faith is the absence of 'evidence

if there was evidence there would be no need for faith. as i said in another post, God will only allow enough evidence to support faith not destroy it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:39 am

if there was evidence there would be no need for faith

Exactly. And since you have NO evidence it takes a shit-load of faith to overcome that handicap.

I'd settle for a broken clay pot with David's name on it but, as I have said before, you bible wackos haven't got a potsherd to piss in.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:29 pm

Exactly

well, Christ's words " blessed are they who have not seen but have believed." (slight paraphrase)

belief in Christ doesn't depend upon what a person has seen and many do not have the luxury of long life to get all the evidence others would require. so if you are going to wait for all the evidence you may never get it.

all archaeology can do is support faith, thus even in the religious field it has its limitations but if you are looking for the 'doubting' thomas smoking gun, that ship has sailed long ago.

at best all i can give you is what evidence there is. one may have to adjust the corrupted dating technique as it certainly is done in a fashion that lends to suspicion.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:50 pm

well, Christ's words " blessed are they who have not seen but have believed."

Or whoever created those words to put in his mouth.

Belief requires a suspension of reason. THAT you have in abundance.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:20 am

Belief requires a suspension of reason

again i would disagree with that because we are to use reason to ensure that our faith is going in the right direction.

granted there are to many believers who shut their brains down because they do not want to grow up and learn, because then they would be required to do something.

how can we believe if there was no faith? evolutionists believe in evolution not because it makes any logical or reasonable sense but because they have faith in what they feel is the evidence to support that belief even though they have never seen evolution in action

those that believe in evolution have only been told by scientists that that is the way it happened, who themselves are far removed from what they are describing. one area where the Bible differs from evolution is that the Bible is full of eyewitnesses whereas evolution has none. the Bible has extra-Biblical accounts and authors who wrote what they saw at or near the time that it happened.

evolution has none. there is not one ancient record that evolutionists can turn to that backs up their account of what took place.

thus faith does not suspend reason, it uses reason to see folly and turn from it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:19 am

again i would disagree with that because we are to use reason to ensure that our faith is going in the right direction.

Then you had best start over!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm

Then you had best start over!

hahaha no. the only ones who need to start over, are those who reject the Bible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:18 pm

"Reject it" seems rather mild for the outright scorn which I have poured on it throughout this thread, don't you think?