Archaeologica.org

Kenneth Kitchen is an Evangelical Christian with regard to his religious beliefs. He is frequently cited by conservative Christians

Uh-huh....I'm sure he is not the least influenced by his religious zeal when he makes such statements.

I'm sure he is not the least influenced by his religious zeal when he makes such statements

i don't think that saying "solomon was just beginning to build' could be influenced by his beliefs. after all he is reading the evidence like everyone else plus his beliefs donot discount his credibility.

No....but ignoring all the facts which archaeology has developed which indicates that Solomon...if he existed at all....was a minor tribal chieftain and not a great king who would even be looking to build cities, is.

but ignoring all the facts which archaeology has developed which indicates that Solomon...if he existed at all....was a minor tribal chieftain and not a great king who would even be looking to build cities, is.

developd by whom?? secular reasearchers who want to minimalize what the Bible is saying? here is more about kitchen you didn't place in your post as you never tell the complete story:

Kitchen is one of the leading experts on Biblical History and the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period having written over 250 books and journal articles on these and other subjects since the mid-1950's. His book, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), is universally regarded by historians as the standard and most comprehensive treatment on this era

he is not a crackpot but highly regarded. then there is this:

Kenneth Kitchen is also regarded as one of the foremost scholars on the Ramesside Period of the New Kingdom and published a well-respected book on Ramesses II in 1982 titled Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt. Kitchen is a leading Maximalist scholar who advocates a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity

and here is a position i can agree with as well:

He is frequently cited by conservative Christians in relation to writings rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis, which claims that the Pentateuch is a composite work of sources labeled J, E, D, and P rather than by Moses as author. Kenneth Kitchen has raised various objections to the documentary hypothesis [1][2][3][4][5]. For example, Kitchen points to Egyptian tablets giving a biographical account in four different writing styles, yet this text (he claims) is widely accepted as having had one author.

so next time you want to discredit someone, paint the whole picture first.

archaeologist wrote:

but ignoring all the facts which archaeology has developed which indicates that Solomon...if he existed at all....was a minor tribal chieftain and not a great king who would even be looking to build cities, is.

developd by whom?? secular reasearchers who want to minimalize what the Bible is saying? here is more about kitchen you didn't place in your post as you never tell the complete story:

Developed by field archaeologists who are out there doing the digging and dismantling your stupid bible every day they dig! You have the same old tune all the time arch: Everybody who reports what they find is out to destroy your fables but those who speculate about evidence that has not been found are doing god's work. That about sums up your outlook.

Kitchen is one of the leading experts on Biblical History and the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period having written over 250 books and journal articles on these and other subjects since the mid-1950's. His book, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC), is universally regarded by historians as the standard and most comprehensive treatment on this era

Regarded by whom? Christian bible-thumpers? I checked through all the books I have laying around...including one by Richard Friedman and Kitchen does not even rate a mention. Obviously, you are far more impressed with bible-thumping morons whose contributions to scholarship consist of little more than wishful-thinking which supports your prejudices. You know, there are people who are "experts" on 19th century British Literature, too. Doesn't mean that Ebenezer Scrooge was a real person.

he is not a crackpot but highly regarded. then there is this:

Kenneth Kitchen is also regarded as one of the foremost scholars on the Ramesside Period of the New Kingdom and published a well-respected book on Ramesses II in 1982 titled Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt. Kitchen is a leading Maximalist scholar who advocates a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity

As noted....no one even mentions him.

and here is a position i can agree with as well:

He is frequently cited by conservative Christians in relation to writings rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis, which claims that the Pentateuch is a composite work of sources labeled J, E, D, and P rather than by Moses as author. Kenneth Kitchen has raised various objections to the documentary hypothesis [1][2][3][4][5]. For example, Kitchen points to Egyptian tablets giving a biographical account in four different writing styles, yet this text (he claims) is widely accepted as having had one author.

so next time you want to discredit someone, paint the whole picture first.

I was going to leave the documentary hypothesis out of it for fear of having to explain it but since you brought it up you should HOPE that it is true. Because if it isn't then your god has alzheimer's which is the only way to explain the duplications, contradictions and flat out lies that are found in the OT.

The documentary hypothesis is the assumption that the Northern and Southern kingdoms each had their own mythology ( J and E) which was subsequently edited (or combined at least) by the Priests and later editors (P and D) after the Babylonian Exile. Real scholars, such as Friedman, make a very convincing case. Bible thumpers like arch merely go..THE BIBLE IS HOLY HOLY HOLY.

Try HOLE-Y, instead.

i did a search on kitchen and the best website thatcame up that provided any biographical explanation was wikipedia so if they are saying he is well regarded then it is a possibility that it is true. i want to find someother source other than that site.

Drs. John Currid & Hoffmeier use Kitchen a lot and i am sure i can find him used in other books.

Developed by field archaeologists who are out there doing the digging and dismantling your stupid bible every day they dig

that is a laugh. more like re-writing it to fit what they want it to be.

I was going to leave the documentary hypothesis out of it

so was i as i tend to find the J,E, P & D theory a little convenient for the minimalists. there are no contradictionsin the Bible and we have been through that before.

to all -

"there are no contradictions in the bible"


let the fun begin


john

Dr. John Currid
Dr. John Currid is Associate Professor of Old Testament at RTS/Jackson.

(RTS stands for Reformed Theological Seminary. "Jackson", I suppose refers to Jackson, Mississippi.....a gold buckle on the bible belt!)

James Hoffmeier is professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Gee whiz! I wonder WHY two bible thumpers would use another bible thumper as a source.

Ever heard the phrase "one lies and the other swears to it", archie? These jesus freaks have a real little syndicate going. I'm sure the donations from the faithful keep pouring in.

You probably shout "Hallelujah" while you're writing checks to these phonies.

You should save your money.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ex ... tions.html


This list of bible contradictions should keep you busy for a while. And, and don't forget the mass murders and rapes that your god thinks are such a hot idea!

i see no contradictions in that link, but i do see a lot of mis-understanding by the authors as they ignore legitimate reasons granted to other secular works which are left unquestioned---case in point:

Taken fromthebook Oral Tradition byEduard Nielsen pg. 31---

"probably nobody would venture to call the Homeric epics popular; on the contrary they are aristocratic, both in structure and as to content. itis the nobility that is glorified...And the Homeric epics seem to have ben created inthe oral tradition, without the aidof writing; for some centuries they were handed down by word of mouth exclusively. Now it is interesting thatthe fact thatthey were put into writing did not at all put anend to the oral recitation or transmission of them"

seems that the homeric tales are accepted as fact without question even though their longevity is owed to Oral and not written tradition. Yet the Bible is place under scrutiny that not even the homeric tales would withstand or even be exposed to. so whenyou apply the standard to allworks then talkto me about contradictions.

on pg. 32:

"regarding the Homeric epics we have just pointed out two methods of tradition running side by side: the public recitation of the poems by a whole guild masters of tradition and reciters, and the written copies deposited indifferentplaces as a means of control for and aid to, oral recitation. A similar interplay exiwsted in Ancient Mesopotamia and we have at least one distinct parallel in the Old Testament."

Now i cite these examples to show the bias displayed to the biblical record which culminates in the J,E, P, D theory and by the minimalist camp (general term) who through unbelief think they have proven something when in reality they have just placed a double standard in play.

J,E,P,& D are convenient excuses for not accepting the reasons that canbe given to explain why there are seemingly apparant contradictions when in reality there are none.

here from the work, Illustrated Manners and Customsof the Bible, by J.I. Packer and merrill C. Tenney on pg. 56 is apoint:

"The best conclusion is that the list in Gen. 11 is not strictly genealogicalso much as epochal. In other words, it gives the names of certain outstanding individuals in the correct genealogical line, but not always in a father to son sequence. Thus the lenght of time covered is longer than it might appear.

The Bible offers us several other examples of epochal lists, as in mat. 1:8, where Jehoram appears top be the father of Uzziah. Actually, Jehoram was the great-great grandfather of Uzziah. Matthew could not have expected this omission to go unnoticed by his readers, nor did he seem to expect them to find fault with it. However strange it is to us, this method of epochal genealogy was well understood in the ancient world."

thus to better understand the Bible, you need to understand how it was written and not assume anything from the modern civilization perspective.

Gee whiz! I wonder WHY two bible thumpers would use another bible thumper as a source

your double standard is showing again. that is like saying Finkelstein is no good because Dever quotes him and vice versa.

Ever heard the phrase "one lies and the other swears to it", archie? These jesus freaks have a real little syndicate going. I'm sure the donations from the faithful keep pouring in.

same could be said of your secular colloborators

it is interesting, asi did another search on ken kitchen, this time on google, all the biographers, answers.com, reference.com quote wikipedia basically word for word. so this time wikipedia is supported.

here are a couple links for him

http://www.liv.ac.uk/sace/organisation/ ... itchen.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/kenneth-kitchen

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/book_ ... rient.html

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I guess you didn't look very hard. Not surprising.

i saw it , that is why i posted the quote about genealogies. i suppose you are going to overlook the quote and continue in your misguided thinking that contradictions appear in the Bible.

i think if you listen to biblical scholars instead of troublemakers like infidel.com you might actually learn something instead of propagating myths created by those who do not believe.

i also foundit quite strange that no matter which biographical material i looked under on the internet about kenneth kitchen, they always deferred to wikipedia. like they can't think for themselves and comeup withother information to add to what that encyclopedia says. why is that? isit an attempt to censor information or discourage investigators who want more than the accepted bio?

I learned in church that there are contradictions in the bible. It was passed off as "open to interpretation". You are deluded, Arch. The bible is perfect eh? You ain't leavin' yourself any room to work there. It's absolutely totally true with no contradictions? Don't you see how impossible that is? How unreasonable? How rigid? How crazy? It's irrational. It's fanatical. It's blind faith.

THe bible isn't perfect? That's being kind.

It reads like a third grade homework assignment.

Here's 101 more contradictions just from the OT.

http://skeptically.org/bible/id8.html

Asa removed the high places. 2 Chr.14:2, 3.
Asa did not remove the high places. 1 Ki.15:14.

Baasha died in the 26tth year of King Asa's reign. 1 Ki.16:6-8.
Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign. 2 Chr.16:1.

Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places. 1 Ki.22:42, 43.
Jehoshaphat did remove the high places. 2 Chr.17:5, 6.

Jehu's massacre was acceptable to God. 2 Ki.10:30.
Jehu's massacre was not acceptable to God. Hos.1:4.