Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:40 pm

that is just the point, she was wrong. her dating was very arbitrary and one of her major errors. i kinow of others who disagree with her as well.

Kenyon's dating has been confirmed by C14 testing. I'll see if I can find the link. I know you prefer to rely on fables but others are more advanced.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:41 pm

Minimalist wrote:
that is just the point, she was wrong. her dating was very arbitrary and one of her major errors. i kinow of others who disagree with her as well.

Kenyon's dating has been confirmed by C14 testing. I'll see if I can find the link. I know you prefer to rely on fables but others are more advanced.

Again, you will scream bloody murder because science does not support your fairy tales but I can't help that.

The primary reason is that more recent dating of wood and grain samples from Jericho have confirmed Kenyon's dating of its destruction at about 1550 B.C.E., long before the time of Joshua. In fact, quite a number of archaeological sites in Israel--including Jerusalem, Hebron, Gezer, Aphek, and Sharuhen--appear to have experienced destruction at about this same date. So Jericho seems to have fallen during a period of major destruction of towns in the region. The most likely candidate for the destruction of these towns would appear to be the Egyptians at the time when they overthrew Hyksos rule in their country and pursued fleeing Hyksos into Palestine.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:16 pm

too convenient if you ask me.

you will scream bloody murder because science does not support your fairy tales but I can't help that.

again the absence of evidence doesn't prove it false and i wouldn't rely on c-14 dating as it is too easy to manipulate. takes very little to corrupt a sample.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:59 pm

Of course you won't. You won't rely on anything that disparages your fairy tales. I expect nothing more from you.

The rest of the world has moved on without you. Carbon dating is accepted scientifically whether you like it or not.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:29 pm

The rest of the world has moved on without you. Carbon dating is accepted scientifically whether you like it or not.

that is fine. it doesn't mean that they got all the 'bugs' out of the process nor does it mean that it is any more acurate tha it once was. it could mean that it is more manipulatable because fewer people question it.

i will have to find the book where i found that kenyon's dating procedure was not based uponthe evidence at hand but solely due toher picking dates out of thin air.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:11 pm

Do that.

Again, C14 proves she was right, regardless.

Science, arch. Not superstition.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:07 am

the more i read mazar the more i see that the whole dating technique and opinions about what happened when are subjective. it all boils down to what you want to believe or what you can accept among other factors. science has very little to do with it except to prove what you want to believe.

sorry but c-14 isn't reliable enough for me

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:53 am

sorry but c-14 isn't reliable enough for me

But your Goatherder's Manual is? This is where you lose all credibility, arch.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:33 pm

But your Goatherder's Manual is? This is where you lose all credibility, arch

but i could say the same for you and c-14. just because it falls under the guise of science, you accept its findings wholeheartedly (or when it suports your view) yet the main weakness of c-14 dating is the calculations. nobody has been alive for 2500 years testing the modern conclusions thus you have no idea if the rate decided upon is actually correct.

nor do you have any idea how much contamination was involved with the artifact while it lay there waiting to be discovered. so you can never be sure if the date given in the result is correct or even accurate. yes there is a +/- ratio thrown in but that doesn't cover for the unknowable factors involved in the life of the artifact.

you may rely on science but with all the variables involved, it is very shakey ground to be standing on. science is not geared to provide answers only possibilities, and with the restrictions people place upon it that is no surprise nor are the conclusions a surprise either.

finding an answer via science is anethema to those who advocateit. they like the idea of possibilities because it gives them more work to do.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:17 pm

Carbon dating has been proven by experiment.

Your goatherder's manual has been disproven by archaeology.

There really is no comparison between the two except in the minds of the befuddled.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:45 pm

Arch, you pass off all scientific dating as unreliable and/or just plain wrong. Would you please explain to us exactly WHAT constitutes accurate, reliable dating? And, PLEASE do not use the Bible as your reference, we all know that if any dating is purely arbitrary that's it. Talk about pulling date out of thin air.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:46 pm

Carbon dating has been proven by experiment.

by experiment?/ ha ha ha. you still have no way of knowing if the rate of decline is as you say it is.

Your goatherder's manual has been disproven by archaeology.

actually, no archaeological discovery has ever proventhe Bible false. it has proven its record true. remember the snake with feet. taken froma non-religious source, so people outside of religion find the evidence whichi have placed here from time to time, you just refuse to accept what i post so it is not my fault.

Would you please explain to us exactly WHAT constitutes accurate, reliable dating?

the question really is, why do we need to date at all? it is obvious and also through reading mazar (and others) that archaeologists are not going to agree with one another for whatever reason or motivation they have.

they interpret the evidence in the way that they want to depending upon their own beliefs and what they can accept to deal with.

we are given no 'made in babylon' labels or 'made in 1455 b.c.' stamps so when an archaeologists digs, they have no real hardline guide to follow. most of it is a guestimate. there is a lot of assumption used here as it is hard to tell when something appeared by trade or was brought in by nomadic wandering. i am not saying the hard work that has been done in establishing time periods is wasted, i am only saying that pottery dating is very hard to pinpoint due to so many factors.

what if, a group of people did what is being done now--using the fad of replicas from past times to provide variety to their stock. ? then our data is thrown out of whack.

i used the example of pelligrino and the egyptologist who threatened to kill herself if her dates were wrong (which pellegrino suggested) there is so much arbitrary input that it is clouding the issues.

then we have the devers and finkelsteins who adamatly try to date everything according to their interpretation and presumably to invalidate the Bible but if you invalidate the Bible then you remove any hope this world has.

their other weakness comes in in their work by the fact that they offer nothing to replace that hope that they set out to destroy. those who follow after the devers and finkelsteins are following in reality- nothing. who wants that?

again, i have shown from non-religious sources snippets of evidence that show the Bible to be correct in its record yet few want to attribute that evidence to the Bible for it not only destroys their theories and work but forces them to have to consider the rest of the Bible message.

as an unbeliever which way would you choose to go? especially after putting in 20, 30 or 40 years work in the opposite direction? it is easier to deny the evidence than to face the reality of what is being said.

ussher in his work stated that creaqtion was done in 4004 b.c. but how can he be so exact, the Bible does not give dates nor would the geneaological record be of any value as there is too much information that is not dealt with. i have read ussher's work and do not agree with him.

dating is only important to those who need dates, for the Bible. the date is not important but the event and the reason for the event is. humans want dates, God wants us to learn a lesson; it is a big difference.

Would you please explain to us exactly WHAT constitutes accurate, reliable dating?

given the above reasoning, i doubt that you would ever find a system that provides accurate dating. so you have to ask yorself, WHY are archaeologists and others so focused on something they can't obtain. at best it offers them a way out, so they think, from what is being said to them through the Bible.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:19 am

then we have the devers and finkelsteins who adamatly try to date everything according to their interpretation and presumably to invalidate the Bible but if you invalidate the Bible then you remove any hope this world has.

Oh, horseshit. It's the 21st century and mankind needs to move beyond superstititon and fables.

Magic is a viable answer when there is no science to explain the world. You are centuries out of date, arch.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:01 am

Magic is a viable answer when there is no science to explain the world. You are centuries out of date, arch.

not really, you have just replaced Jesus and God and their words with dever and finkelstein and their opinions. the only difference is that i have something and you have nothing

good luck to you

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:21 am

First off, only religious establishment has "proven" the Bible true; although only in their own minds. Secondly , " . . . the question really is, why do we need to date at all?" If in your opinion we do not need dates, why are you so unyielding in trying to prove that the dates being used are in error? If in your literal mind everything in the Bible is absolute, then what difference should it make to you what year it happened in, because nobody is going to be able to tell you that is didn't happen the way you say. Maybe those of us with scientific minds like the idea that we have to think about things, we like the digging for the truth behind both facts and fiction. Then we each form our [b]own ideas[/b], which I'm sure would never occur to you to try. I guess your path is just too easy, don't think just accept.