Archaeologica.org

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'll stick with the non-believers....they seem to make a hell of a lot more sense because they are not stuck defending ridiculous fairy tales as if they had some basis in fact.

You are deluded

it is easy to sit back and make such comments along with charges that there are contradictions in the Bible. both skeptics.com & infidels.com have brought it to an art form and then do very little investigative work.

they find an apparant error and then sit back and say,'we have proven the bible false' or something similar to that. if they do any research, it is usually among those sources that are like-minded and ignore those scholars who have said something diffferent.

Minimalist does it also, he types inthe author or source i present and when he finds the key words he wants, those that fit his criteria for acceptnce and denial, he then dismisses those sources based on a blurb and not investigation into the argument written.

thatis not research nor academic, let alone archaeological, it is just looking for an ecuse to not be exposed to the argument from the other side. or other facts that prove him and detractors wrong.

case in point; colin humphreys. easily dismissed without reading his work yet humphreys makes some good points one of which i will post below. he may be treated badly by some but at least he is out there looking for answers and provides sound reasoning for his arguments. i can't say that i agree with him 100% but he makes points worth considering and he may be closer to the truth than anyone will grant him. Ch. 13, 14 &15 are very good and should be read carefully.

without proper exporation into the accusations, it is easy to think that the Bible has made errors, which it hasn't a but that is beside the point. unless one is willing to accept the reasons for such writings then the Bible will always be full of contradictions even though the same reasons are accepted for secular works. thus it is not the Bible that has the problem, it is those who refuse to accept the Bible that apply narrow & strict guidelines upon it that they refuse to do for other ancient writings, which cause the problems.

now i could go through all those passages and present toyou the facts behind the seemingly mistakes but all i would get is more dismissals, accusations or rejection of my sources and references along with the rejection of any reasons i would present.

this investigation needs to be done honestly by you all so you can see for yourself what lies beneath the written word. there are other reasons why you should undertake such a task; i.e. no accusation of bias on my part or twisting of the quotes, and so on. that is if you can be honest and open-minded.

Now for that humphrey's quote: The Miracles of the Exodus, pgs. 204-5--

"The Greek Septuagint interpretation of 'yam suph' as 'eruthra thalassa' is not therefore "the most famous mistranslation in history", but on this occasion I believe it is absolutely correct."

"Why haven't biblical scholars discovered these? I believe the answer is that they haven't looked."

taken from his chapter on the 'red sea' / 'reed sea' discussion. he proves with investigation that the Bible is right and does not sit back at home flinging accusations. or using like-minded sources to justify their inaction.

they find an apparant error and then sit back and say,'we have proven the bible false' or something similar to that. if they do any research, it is usually among those sources that are like-minded and ignore those scholars who have said something diffferent.

No...they find an error and point it out to the "infallible word of god crowd" and watch them squirm trying to explain it away....and failing, of course since they are in fact contradictions.

case in point; colin humphreys. easily dismissed without reading his work yet humphreys makes some good points one of which i will post below

Humphrey's is a scientist who is looking for rational explanations to biblical bullshit.

If he succeeded you'd be screaming bloody murder because he "leaves out god" which is certainly a rational thing for a scientist to do...if not a bible-thumper.

There is simply no point in looking for scientific explanations for bible-based miracles because those miracles were invented hundreds of years after the fact by people with a whole other agenda.

But it's Humphrey's time and if he wants to waste it, it is no skin off my nose.

If he succeeded you'd be screaming bloody murder because he "leaves out god" which is certainly a rational thing for a scientist to do...if not a bible-thumper

i have already stated my opinion on this matter

Humphrey's is a scientist who is looking for rational explanations to biblical bullshit

does it always have to be a supernatural miracle? i think the timing alone would indicate God's power and control over the earth.

There is simply no point in looking for scientific explanations for bible-based miracles because those miracles were invented hundreds of years after the fact by people with a whole other agenda

prove it or is this just what you want it to be?

No...they find an error and point it out to the "infallible word of god crowd" and watch them squirm trying to explain it away....and failing, of course since they are in fact contradictions

but i am not going to do that as i am challenging you all to do your own investigation honestly so you have no doubts.

and, by the way

there IS the argument that man created god in his own image, rather than vice-versa. and continues to do so.

the ongoing callous and bloody success of the political, racial, and social programs (pogroms?) promoted and enforced by groups who have 1 thing in common - that they, alone, have god's blessing - lends a certain amount of credence to this argument.

there is no ultimate truth, no godhead, nor will there ever be.

once again, if you meet the buddha or jesus on the interstate, kill the bastards.............

they are both imposters.



john

prove it or is this just what you want it to be?

It has been proven to my satisfaction. The bible is the biggest bullshit story in history. The fact that you still believe in fairy tales is no concern of mine.

It has been proven to my satisfaction

that is all you got? here i am outlinging a serious discussion and you take the easy way out by posting a closed sentence.

The bible is the biggest bullshit story in history

you keep saying this but it won't make it true with every utterance.

there is no ultimate truth, no godhead, nor will there ever be.

back this up; declatory sentences like that mean very little.

at least try to stay on topic and contribute constructively

There is a a wealth of archaeological evidence that you choose to ignore because it does not fit in with your prejudices.

I can't help that. You have chosen to rely on fairy tales instead of science.

You can whine about your fucking bible all you want, it is still nothing more than a fantasy of some priests' imagination.

Too bad.

back this up; declatory sentences like that mean very little.

at least try to stay on topic and contribute constructively[/quote]


such as your declaratory phrase that the bible contains no contradictions.

yes?

john

and ps

please direct me any extant copy of the bible written by god, hisself.


john

There is a a wealth of archaeological evidence that you choose to ignore because it does not fit in with your prejudices.

then list it. i am tired of reading finkelstein's and dever's opinions anyways. i don't think they have enough prrof to substantiate their claims.

here from the book 'Old Testament Times' by the late R.K. Harrison are some quotes that help shed light on the different situations discussed:

1. Jericho-- " Thus the various excavations at Jericho have combined to make it almost impossible for the modern scholar to say anything with absolute certainty about the nature of the city in the time of Joshua, a result that was naturally far removed from the intention of those who worked at the site. pg. 17-18

Dspite this and other problems, such as the divergent interpretations of the same archaeological material, there can be no question but that the general tenor of the discoveries serves to confirm the historicity of the Biblical accounts, rather than to depreciate or disparage them, in the manner adopted by a former generation of liberal scholars."

2. age of Biblical authorship-- "In the light of what is now known about th high degree of literacy that obtained in the ancient Near east during the second millenniumb.c., it is possible to assign written biblical material with confidence to a much earlier phase of cultural developement than was formerly the case...it is now unnecessary to propose a prolonged degree of oral transmission of material before it assumed a written form."pg.18-9

3. Genealogies -- "When the writersof Mesopotamian antiquity compiled their king lists, genealogies and other historical accounts, they were attempting , as responsible historiographers, to set down the data as they knew them...This principle, which by no means died with the passing of Near Eastern antiquity, meant that, for example, unimportant individuals in geanlogical lists or family trees could be omitted if it was thought desirable by the compiler. It also allowed a higher degree of latitude in the use of such terms of descent as 'son' or 'daughter'" pg. 21

4.On Methods-- "What is complicated about the records of the kings of Israel and Judah is the fact that the scribes occassionally changed the system of chronological reckoning without warning, andto make things even more difficult for the modern student there were times when the scribes of each kingdom employed different methods of chronological computation. (this would answer some of the 'contradictions')"

"Editing or revising of any kind was discouraged in Sumeria, so that the texts that were copied out passed down the centuries virtually unchanged. By contrast, Egyptian scribes regularly revised earlier literature, substituting contemporary grammatical and orthographic forms for more archaic ones, bringing ancient names up to date, and introducing more modern vocabulary without at the same time impairing the genuineness or authority of the original composition."

"Recent archaeological discoveries have made it plain that the Hebrews, along with the Hittites of Anotolia, were by far the best technical writers of history in the Near Eastern antiquity. The Egyptians by contrast seem to have had very little interest in history writing despite the abundance of source material,since no histories have survived from the Dynastic period. Because of the comparitive objectivity of the Hebrew records it is possible to employ then as control material in appropriate instances as a means of scaling down the inflated claims of such sources as the Assyrian and Babylonian annals and the occasional Egyptian inscription."

"Similarly it is important to avoid the kindof embarrassment caused in some scholarly circles by the assumption that the Egyptian historical sources were as reliable factually as they appeared to be at first sight. It is now known that the bulk of such material ispropaganda rather than history and that it was composed in order to present to future generations a 'correct' view of what happened." pgs. 23-26

these quotes touch on some of the points we have been discussing lately and you may be able to find where the relate to if you read slowly. he says on the final page of the chapter:

"This is not to imply, of course, that no credence oughtt be given to any one section of the Old Testamnet until it has been authenticated beyond doubt by means of archaeological, linguistic or other discoveries. The approach under consideration does, however, guarantee an important degree of control over thekindof unbridled speculation that hasmarred Old Testament scholarship for too many generations by demanding a closer relationship between theory and fact."

In other words the finkelsteins and devers need to stop hypothesizing and prove what they are speculating.

You can trot out every goddamn jesus freak you like and it will still not change the fact that there is NO RECORD of Israelites in Egypt, no record of Israelites in Israel until about 1207 BC, no record of the Egyptians paying any attention to the Judahites at all while they were controlling Canaan, no evidence for Jerusalem being anything more than a tiny shithole in the middle of nowhere, no evidence for an Exodus, a Conquest, a Flood, a Garden of Eden, Patriarchs, a Davidic Empire, Solomonic building, Samson, Delilah, etc...etc.

When your aged jesus freaks (which is what this guy Harrison is) engage in wishful thinking and write a book of Holy Shit you are free to eat it up.

It has nothing to support it except the opinions of old men who were desperate to find some justification for having wasted their lives in the pursuit of the patently absurd.

Finkelstein has forgotten more about archaeology than these old farts ever knew.

Finkelstein has forgotten more about archaeology than these old farts ever knew

what upsets you more? the fact i can hold a decent conversation with you; or that i can provide evidence to support what i believe, or that i have shown too many times that you and your buddies, finkelstien and dever, are just wrong?

i really like that part about 'too many interpretations for the same archaeological material'. i thought that hit home as it shows the vulnerbility of archaeology and how it is subject to the whims of those who work in it.

i am not a fan of kenyon's nor of her style of digging as it leaves so much information buried, when it should have been dug up and analyzed at the same time. too much information was lost which would have been beneficial.

you get so upset that i disagree with you and all i am doing is trying to have a simple discussion and make my side as archaeological as possible. it is a good thing that i do or yu would only have those that tell you what you want to hear talking to you then you would know even less than you do now.

i willalways use my 'bible thumpers', as you call them, as the ones i pick are generally on the ball and know what they are talking about and have been on the field digging throughout their tenures as professors. Save for humphrey.

the fact i can hold a decent conversation with you;

YOu haven't yet. All you do is imply that the bible is true because it is "the bible."

That's horseshit.

Come up with some real proof in the form of artifacts or inscriptions or give up trying to sustain any idea that the bible is anything more than what it is: An origin myth for a bunch of goatherders who never amounted to much of anything in the ancient world.