Archaeologica.org

Well min, I know those answers, and you look the fool with your silly requirements to reveal what I'm sure would be some asinine answers from you, so just carry-on in your ignorant and ill-mannered way, everybody is used to it by now I'm sure.

Actually, GV. You don't know Jack Shit.

Hey min, do trust the ancient chronology by the Egyptian priest Manetho, or the one by Solon?

GV. You want answers, you know what you have to do.

ha ha. yeah we both do. we have to do everything you refuse to do. he likes sitting in his ivory tower pronouncing judgment in all topics as if he is the final wordon what is true and what isn't. it gets old but i have learned to ignore it.

you never venture far from your bible thumper cult of writers.

why would i? i know the Bibler is true and you have never provided anything better to replace it. in fact you rarely provide a quote or a link and when you do you never follow it up with a discussion.

Arch, you have been told a hundred times which books to read. You refuse to do it. Stick to your fairy tales, laddie. You'll be happier....if no wiser.

you have been told a hundred times which books to read.

you are into brainwashing i see. sorry i will choose my own books thank you.

anyways, now that i am home, i decided to post the ken kitchen passage that deals with such things as the following:

Archaeology has shown where and when they arose.....in Eastern Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

taken from pg. 58:

"During the current decade, however, and especially since the death of Albright, reaction has...set in. Encouraged by 'old-style diehards' in both Germqany and America, a small group of younger scholars have written at length to 'debunk' the views of the Albright school concerning the patriarchal age-- and in fact, any view other than the negative attitude to early Hebrew tradition in the latter 19th century. Far froim being 'radical' scholars, such writers are in truth 'reactionaries' who seek, in essence, to put the clock back 100 years... However these same advocates themselves then fail to match up to this selfsame standard of reviewing the patriarchal data against all periods. Instead they neglect the 3rd millenium BC entirely, along with whole sections of relevent evidence from the early 2nd millenium and give exaggerated attention, to 1st millenium materials. In the process, the fail, therefore, to disytinguish between features attested to all periods (hence useless for dating), features attested to some periods and features attested in only one period. In order to prop up the old 19th century view of the patriarchs as late fictions dreamt up 1000 years after the 'patriarchal age', they are driven to produce arguments at times so tortuous and convoluted as to stand almost self-condemned as spurious and far from even remotely proving their case."

basically he has put finkelstein and dever (and people like them) and the wellhausen train of thought in their place, unreliable and mis-representing the evidence, along with untrue.

you are into brainwashing i see. sorry i will choose my own books thank you.

That's why you never learn anything.

wow what a stimulating and incisive answer. must have taken you hours to think of and write that one.

we all know that dever and finkelstein think they have debunked albright and other good archaeologists but in reality all they have done is use the evidence for their own theory and cannot prove their conclusions.

i will re-post the reveiw of finkelstein's book and maybe this time you will read it. it will be in the other thread though.

Hey min, which people-group dominantly occupied the Holy Land at around 1300 B.C., was it the Persians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Canaanites, or somebody else? (This ougta be good.)

archaeologist wrote:wow what a stimulating and incisive answer. must have taken you hours to think of and write that one.

we all know that dever and finkelstein think they have debunked albright and other good archaeologists but in reality all they have done is use the evidence for their own theory and cannot prove their conclusions.

i will re-post the reveiw of finkelstein's book and maybe this time you will read it. it will be in the other thread though.

Just keep thumping your bible, arch.

It will prevent you from learning anything.

Is your faith so weak that you don't trust yourself when presented with alternatives?

Hey min, is your faith so weak that you don't trust yourself when presented with alternatives?

The answer is yes (since you're not speaking to me), because you are a fanatical Fundamentalist Darwinite who would brainwash us all into believing the tripe that we morphed from tree shrews, you've got to be kidding!

Just to try to bring this back on topic, is there any *archaeological* evidence that can conclusively be shown to be connected to an exodus from Egypt? I don't know of any.

Just to try to bring this back on topic, is there any *archaeological* evidence that can conclusively be shown to be connected to an exodus from Egypt? I don't know of any.

yes you do, and it is also classified as an ancient source but you and others do not accept it words. then accordingto montgomery and velikovsky, among others, there actually is evidence but it may be located in a different dynasty.

i would love to get links that discuss montgomery's evidence in more detail.

archaeologist wrote:

Just to try to bring this back on topic, is there any *archaeological* evidence that can conclusively be shown to be connected to an exodus from Egypt? I don't know of any.

yes you do, and it is also classified as an ancient source but you and others do not accept it words. then accordingto montgomery and velikovsky, among others, there actually is evidence but it may be located in a different dynasty.

i would love to get links that discuss montgomery's evidence in more detail.

Those are documentary sources or opinions. I was asking about evidence in the archaeological sense of the word.

an ancient text is evidence in the archaeological sense of the word.

the problem with finding evidence for the exodus is nicely explained by Kitchen's comments about erosion of the sites (posted earlier here or in another thread).

then you have to decide which evidence you are looking for: are you looking for distinct israeli cultural evidence, most likely not developed tillafter the conquest and the settlement, or are youo looking for egyptian remains that were used by the israeli's for the previous 400 + years?

then you can throw in the patriarchal evidence and the culture they were using prior to their entry into the land of egypt. given the fact that abraham spent his years in Ur of the Chaldees, Canaan and forays into egypt (along with the next two generations) the question remians and is a valid one:

what type of evidence are you looking for?