Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:41 pm

No, no Frank....those particular humans are "infallible" because 'god' said so.

We are dealing with a medievalist, here.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:50 pm

Again,

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/jews.htm

some archaeology mixed in with interesting etymology as well as regional history.

Mrs God

"At two sites, Kuntilet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention 'YHWH and his Asherah', 'YHWH Shomron and his Asherah', 'YHWH Teman and his Asherah'.

These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel."
– Ze'ev Herzog (Prof. Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:00 am

These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel."

certainly proves what i have been saying for awhile now.

How stupid are you?

feeling at liberty to make such comments? i think you also called me an idiot. but never-the-less i am neither.

i amnot the one doing the personal attacks or putting down the Bible in colorful language nor am i insulting anyone so i must not be the stupid one. i am making my point that those whoomit the consideration of ancient religious sources and Biblical accounts are not receiving complete data and their conclusins are skewered. as illustrated above.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:19 am

Bullshit! You're just an idiot.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:34 am

Bullshit! You're just an idiot.

everytime you do this, you prove me right.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:57 am

Actually it was a quote from Napolean Dynamite, but you seriously are a real live idiot. I never met someone so stupid. You're childish to believe the fairy tales you try to push on us. The thing which really gets me is that you think that if one thing in the bible is proven to be remotely resembling fact then it validates the entire outdated tome. I was willing to concede that some things in the OT were true, but you didn't want to meet me halfway. It's all or nothing. Well, then it's nothing. You're wrong! It's a very unreliable history book, embellished with myths, legends and outright lies. A smart person could see that, but one with blinders on who chooses to ignore facts and use it for a guide to every day life will always remain in the dark. You are in denial, deluded by your faith. The morals that the church purports to extoll are good, but the belief system which totally ignores logic and science is from the dark ages. The dark ages which the church brought on I might add. So I guess you believe that disease is brought on by evil spirits and that only god can cure it and if you die from it, then it has to be god's will. How suprised you'll be when your spark fades out and there's nothing. No heaven, no hell, no god, no angels, no fairy tale stuff at all. You're expecting some deity to pat you on the back and say "well done my good and faithful servant." Surprise! The light just goes out and it's all over.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:01 am

When I get around to it he's going to be very upset with Dever's book on Jewish polytheism. From his and other's finds (those damn artifacts, again!) it seems pretty clear that at roughly the same time that the priests and scribes invented the heroic history of Israel/Judah they also invented the Yahweh-alone club and re-wrote history so that this band of regurgitated Canaanites were told that they had 'always' believed in one god and they'd better get back to it before he got pissed again....then they wrote in a few examples of what happens when god gets pissed.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:11 am

archaeologist wrote:
Bullshit! You're just an idiot.
everytime you do this, you prove me right.

Every time you open your mouth you prove me right.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:27 am

Frank Harrist wrote:
archaeologist wrote:
Bullshit! You're just an idiot.
everytime you do this, you prove me right.
Every time you open your mouth you prove me right.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:44 pm

[quote="Minimalist"]
[quote]Mrs God

"At two sites, Kuntilet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention 'YHWH and his Asherah', 'YHWH Shomron and his Asherah', 'YHWH Teman and his Asherah'.

These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel."
– Ze'ev Herzog (Prof. Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University)
[/quote][/quote]

Asherah is only one of the many female counterparts to the gods of the middle east. Nowadays we refer to it as the "Sacred Feminine." Jewish men came to the conclusion that it didn't fit in with God is a man and the only one and that they didn't like it. So they decided to put women in their place. Guess that's why they made up the story of Adam and Eve, so they could blame all the problems of world on women. Since the founders of Christianity originally were male Jews, they kept those ideas. Regardless of what you may think of "The Da Vinci Code" it has opened up a whole new area of study about the role of women in early religion.

Every religion in history, except for the Judeo, Christian, Islamic ones (and maybe Buddhism which I consider a philosophy not a religion as they don't have a godhead) have female goddesses. The Gods all had wives, not to mention a bevy of mortal cuties.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:05 pm

I was willing to concede that some things in the OT were true, but you didn't want to meet me halfway.

i can't meet you halfway, it is God's word and i am not at liberty to make those type of concessions. nor would i if i were.

The morals that the church purports to extoll are good, but the belief system which totally ignores logic and science is from the dark ages

there is your problem, you elevate science over scripture.

The light just goes out and it's all over.

for you that is wishful and hopeful thinking because you want to avoid what is said in the new testament. but your denial doesn't stop what is going to happen but i will leave you to that.

It's a very unreliable history book, embellished with myths, legends and outright lies.

that is your take on it but remember i am not pushing anything, i am presenting my side, the only people i see pushing, bullying or attacking is your side.

to contine my point, shellywachsmann, (texas a & m )in a lecture made a point about when seafaring began. he gave the time as 12-14,000 years ago and he based it upon one artifact, a piece of volcanic rock, found in greece but was not native to that country but an island out in the med. sea.

based upon the dating of that rock, he and others assume that is when the piece made its journey to greece and thus sea travel was active so long ago.

i find that a bit hard to believe because the age of the rock does not necessarily mean the time when it traveled. it could have gone across the sea at any time.

this type of thinking illustrates my point exactly, given little data, assumptions are made, nothing else is considered and soon it is written in stone and i find this to be the rule not the exception especially when it comes to biblical archaeology.

great conclusions are made based upon assumption and lack of data, along with judging the Bible to be wrong from the get go, as man thinks he has all the answers, these conclusions are soon written in stone and then people latch onto it because they do not want to come to grips with what the Bible says.

let's not forget to throw in the manipulations of the data as well. it is highly assumed that what people like dever and finkelstein (or darwin etc.) are being honest with the data they have on hand. there can be a mistake in the process, a misclaculation, or error of some kind that leads these people off on the wrong path to begin with. yet these men, who are subject to many temptations and make mistakes, are considered 100% right while the Bible, under no such pressure, is considered 100% wrong.

time to re-think who you listen too--the Bible is not wrong

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:41 pm

You say the Bible is not wrong, then answer this.

The OT says that the promised redeemer would be a descendent from the house of David. In the NT, the gospels state that Mary and Joseph went to Betlehem because Joseph was of the house of David. So if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, he was not a direct descendent of David.

You say that if one thing in the Bible is true then everything in it is true, I say that if one thing is wrong the whole Bible is suspect.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:49 pm

Asherah is only one of the many female counterparts to the gods of the middle east.

Very true, Leona, but Asherah is the one we have actual evidence being worshipped in Judah at a time when the priests who cobbled together that goddamn book claimed that everyone was a dour monotheist instead of the happy (and fertile) pagans which they apparently were.

If only ONE thing in the bible was wrong I'd give it a lot of credit. In fact, most of it is horseshit.

Here's a list of biblical contradictions.

http://www.religionisbullshit.net/contradictions.php

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:27 am

So if Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, he was not a direct descendent of David.

there are several answers to that but i am still searching for the best one and more information to explain it clearly. one thoery holds that mary also was from the house of david thus making Jesus a direct descendent but we do not have enough evidence to confirm this.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:16 am

I have no doubt that if the subject raises it ugly head often enough, someone will come up with a explanation. As George Tyrrell said in "External Religion: Its Use and Abuse," individuals theoretically "first fix their beliefs, and then fabricate reason in support of them." This was written in 1901, the guy was way ahead of his time.