Current Biblical Archaeology

[Guest]

The only thing I'm holding my breath for is Arch's claim of victory and dishonest discussion on my part.

had no intention of doing that, i have been wondering why you have been holding back though.

as for the supplementery dating processes you have quoted i need to do some reading on those first but you ignored the question i asked which would have helped out a lot.

you have taken a position which you refuse to address anything i write till i try and refute your position, i may not even try to do that till much later in the discussion.

[Minimalist]

Told ya!


Let's give arch a little something more to be pissed over.

Israel Finkelstein comments on the work of biblical historian, Baruch Halpern and archaeologist, Lawrence Stager, who, with much the same interest in religious practices as William Dever....

have compared the biblical descriptions of clan structure with the remains of Iron Age settlements in the hill country and have identified a distinctive architectural pattern of extended family compounds, whose inhabitants probably performed rituals that were sometimes quite different from those in the Temple of Jerusalem. Local customs and traditions insisted that the Judahites inherited their houses, their land, and even their tombs from their god and their ancestors. Sacrifices were offered at shrines within domestic compounds, at family tombs and at open altars throughout the countryside. These places of worship were rarely disturbed, even by the most "pious" and aggressive of kings. Thus it is no wonder that the bible repeatedly notes that "the high places were not taken away."

The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral worship and household god worship was not--as the book of Kings imply--apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah who worshipped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples."

In other words, arch's precious Hebrews were not terribly monotheistic until sometime much later on. Several centuries, later....as a matter of fact.

[Guest]

In other words, arch's precious Hebrews were not terribly monotheistic until sometime much later on. Several centuries, later....as a matter of fact.

you people and the authors you read, really don't know anything. such a blatant lie you have posted. it must be finkelstein's purpose to re-write the Bible and proclaim himself as the only person of truth. again what a joke and i will leave you to your misleading authors.

Told ya!

'told ya' what...? i am not backing out of the discussion but wondering out loud why tj has taken the route he has. i found that his initial post was lacking in personal opinion and made great leaps from topic to topic without commentary then he leaves me to figure out what he said.

whooppeee! i will do some research and get back to him but as i said i am only wiling to go as far as 12,000 years ago if that.

[tj]

The only thing I'm holding my breath for is Arch's claim of victory and dishonest discussion on my part.

had no intention of doing that,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. My response to Minimalist was partially, although not totally, in jest.

i have been wondering why you have been holding back though.

I'm not really holding back. I'd like to take a slow and measured approach.

as for the supplementery dating processes you have quoted i need to do some reading on those first but you ignored the question i asked which would have helped out a lot.

This stuff is difficult for us laymen to fully grasp, I realize that. When I say 'take your time', my intent isn't to be cocksure or snarky; it is a genuine statement.

Let's take a quick look at what I think is the question you refer to: "how do researchers know how much c-14 had at the time of death?". The answer to this question is given by the supplementary dating techniques that I have quoted. Rene has provided some explanation of this covering the last 10,000 years or so in his/her most recent post in this thread. Let's thresh that post out a little.

Imagine that a piece of timber is dated via uncalibrated C14 to be 3000 years old. Now, via established tree ring chronologies we establish the age of that same piece of timber to be 3100 years old. We might have a second piece of timber from a different site that uncalibrated C14 says is 5000 years old and the established tree ring chronologies says is 5100 years old. A pattern in the inaccuracy of C14 over the time that dendrochronology covers begins to emerge. Via this dual testing, a mathematical function can be constructed that skews the C14 date to agree with the tree ring dating. This is calibration. In essence, the amount of C14 at the time of death can be reverse engineered to be very accurate.

Here comes the rub. If you are willing to accept the above methods and aren't willing to accept dates greater than what dendrochronology can verify, then the burden of refuting the coral, sediment, and core calibration rests firmly on your shoulders.

you have taken a position which you refuse to address anything i write till i try and refute your position, i may not even try to do that till much later in the discussion.

My reasoning is simple: I'm not going to discuss this further with you if you don't even understand it in the first place. Your comments thus far on the topic don't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[Minimalist]

you people and the authors you read, really don't know anything. such a blatant lie you have posted. it must be finkelstein's purpose to re-write the Bible and proclaim himself as the only person of truth. again what a joke and i will leave you to your misleading authors

You just can't face the truth, can you? I ask you to provide artifacts to support your position and you cannot.

Halpern, Stager and Dever find all sorts of cult objects throughout Judah and you accuse them of.....what? Planting the evidence for the sole purpose of discrediting your silly book.

You've been lied to since you were a child by these religious phonies. That part isn't your fault but you've reached the age where you should be able to evaluate evidence that archaeology provides and reach the conclusion that these bible-thumping jackoffs are in it for themselves.

You choose not to.

[Guest]

If you are willing to accept the above methods and aren't willing to accept dates greater than what dendrochronology can verify, then the burden of refuting the coral, sediment, and core calibration rests firmly on your shoulders.

i understand that andiwould have to do some reading up on those dating methods as i do not come across them that often.

I'm not going to discuss this further with you if you don't even understand it in the first place. Your comments thus far on the topic don't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

well if you think that it won't be beneficial then end it now as i do not forsee me changing the time frame i have mentioned. such time frames are not plausible for me at this time and i see nothing in the archaeological record that would support longer than 12,000 years.

one of my professors stated in oneof his lectures that arcaheological evidence does not go back further than 10,000 years and i have seen nothing to contridict that yet.

[alrom]

Hi you all,

I'm sorry to interrupt your highly amusing discussion, but I've been searching in vain for a book and I think that maybe the people in here might help me.

I'm trying to find serious and good information on the evolution of religion, the roots of christianity its influences etc. but from an agnostic (i.e. distanced from christianity) point of view, as I feel most of the sources that I can find are quite 'believers' and lack critical thinking on this subject.

[Guest]

I'm trying to find serious and good information on the evolution of religion, the roots of christianity its influences etc. but from an agnostic

any good used book store should be able tohelp you with that quest, they ahve a pretty good handle on who wrote what and what their religious preference is.

[tj]

If you are willing to accept the above methods and aren't willing to accept dates greater than what dendrochronology can verify, then the burden of refuting the coral, sediment, and core calibration rests firmly on your shoulders.

i understand that andiwould have to do some reading up on those dating methods as i do not come across them that often.

Again, take your time and investigate them.

I'm not going to discuss this further with you if you don't even understand it in the first place. Your comments thus far on the topic don't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

well if you think that it won't be beneficial then end it now as i do not forsee me changing the time frame i have mentioned. such time frames are not plausible for me at this time and i see nothing in the archaeological record that would support longer than 12,000 years.

We're discussing C14 dating, not the archaeological record. C14 dating does not rely on archaeology. Keep the carriage behind the horse.

[Minimalist]

Hi you all,

I'm sorry to interrupt your highly amusing discussion, but I've been searching in vain for a book and I think that maybe the people in here might help me.

I'm trying to find serious and good information on the evolution of religion, the roots of christianity its influences etc. but from an agnostic (i.e. distanced from christianity) point of view, as I feel most of the sources that I can find are quite 'believers' and lack critical thinking on this subject.

You could start with Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote The Bible" or Gary Greenberg's "101 Myths of the Bible" for an overview. Both are available from Amazon.

On the new testament, Burton Mack has written several books. Caution, Mack is a bit hard to follow.

[Leona Conner]

[quote="alrom"]Hi you all,

I'm sorry to interrupt your highly amusing discussion, but I've been searching in vain for a book and I think that maybe the people in here might help me.

I'm trying to find serious and good information on the evolution of religion, the roots of christianity its influences etc. but from an agnostic (i.e. distanced from christianity) point of view, as I feel most of the sources that I can find are quite 'believers' and lack critical thinking on this subject.[/quote]

Welcome Alrom: If you find one please post it here, I've been looking forsomething like that myself.

Way back 50 or so years when I was in college majoring in cultural anthropology, the evolution of religion was my big interest. That was until the priest at my church informed me that to study any kind of evolution, even cultural, was pure heresy and that could no longer be a practicing Catholic. So being a not so good little Catholic girl, I changed, religion not subject matter.

[Guest]

That was until the priest at my church informed me that to study any kind of evolution, even cultural, was pure heresy and that could no longer be a practicing Catholic

seems that the majority of dissenters here come from the catholic church, no wonder you don't listen to anyone but then don't let that church be your defining guide to christianity as it is not a christian church.

Again, take your time and investigate them.

since you have taken the time to discuss normally, i would like to make sure we are on the same page and not disappoint.

[tj]

Sounds good Arch.

seems that the majority of dissenters here come from the catholic church...

For the sake of trivia... Ex-Missouri Synod Lutheran here.

[Minimalist]

Oh, yeah....protestantism was such an improvement, wasn't it?

More bullshit, Piled Higher and Deeper.

[ReneDescartes]

Indeed it is no improvement .On the contrary it seems that their god is now called openly dollar .