Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:09 pm
What do Billy Graham and the Dallas Cowboys have in common?
They both can fill up Texas Stadium, and in fifteen minutes,
they both can have the crowd yelling Jesus Christ!!
Archaeologica.org
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Current Biblical Archaeology
Page 73 of 122
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:42 pm
that was probably Ron Wyatt who has since died at a fairly young age.i don't quote or use wyatt's work as he was partof the lunatic fringe.There was one moron who claimed to have found 'bronze wheel tips' from Egyptian chariots that were drowned in the Red Sea. He has refused to present them for peer review probably because he knows that his position is ludicrous
secular archaeologists have their minds made up with their own theories and interpretations and hardly agree amongst themselves, so there is no point in presenting to those who thnk they have the final word.The fact is, it does not matter what a serious archaeologist says about them, bible thumpers will continue to believe that they are wheel tips nonetheless.
thanks for the chuckle, evolution is so far from science that it has to e-mail a greeting. i get a kick out of everytime someone says that, it is so funny.We see the same attitude (mainly from you) about evolution which is as close to scientific fact as possible to get
that would fall under the category of 'the blind leading the blind' i believe. not every religious archaeologist is going to be spot on but those that are, and are serious, are far more capable of finding the truth than those who toss the evidence out in the trash because they refuse to accept the Bible as accurate.the counsel of the ungodly" pretty much says everything that needs to be said. I'll stick with the ungodly every day of the week. Far less hypocritical and a hell of a lot smarter
did I?? i don't remember bbut i know from my readings they do what secular ones do, they stick with like minded people who support their finds. i think you would find this true on both sides of the fence. there are some, like me, who go outside of the tight little circle to make sure the truth is found.All these christian assholes rely on the writings of other christian assholes. They don't dare step outside of that tight little circle.
like i said... anyways, humphreys makes some good points, worth talking about and so does harrison i do not exclude too many authors if they are constructive and make good points.Not when it comes to bible thumpers. They are all assholes.
you'll notice i am ignoring both john and marduk as they are incapable of constructing anything worthwhile to read, which goes for my readings in archaeology and ancient history.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:29 am
You only exclude authors who point out to you that your bible is hopelessly compromised by real evidence. John and marduk have a far better appreciation of these issues than you do. You are blinded by faith.archaeologist wrote:that was probably Ron Wyatt who has since died at a fairly young age.i don't quote or use wyatt's work as he was partof the lunatic fringe.There was one moron who claimed to have found 'bronze wheel tips' from Egyptian chariots that were drowned in the Red Sea. He has refused to present them for peer review probably because he knows that his position is ludicrous
No. That's not the name and this guy was interviewed on a recent History Channel special. He is typical of the ilk, though. He finds a piece of bronze and concocts a whole story to go along with it. I'm sure he's a big hit on the rubber chicken circuit in the bible belt. Why give that up in the name of science?
secular archaeologists have their minds made up with their own theories and interpretations and hardly agree amongst themselves, so there is no point in presenting to those who thnk they have the final word.The fact is, it does not matter what a serious archaeologist says about them, bible thumpers will continue to believe that they are wheel tips nonetheless.
Ah, but bible-thumpers don't, huh?
thanks for the chuckle, evolution is so far from science that it has to e-mail a greeting. i get a kick out of everytime someone says that, it is so funny.We see the same attitude (mainly from you) about evolution which is as close to scientific fact as possible to get
Glad you enjoyed it. It's still true and the bible is still horseshit.
that would fall under the category of 'the blind leading the blind' i believe. not every religious archaeologist is going to be spot on but those that are, and are serious, are far more capable of finding the truth than those who toss the evidence out in the trash because they refuse to accept the Bible as accurate.the counsel of the ungodly" pretty much says everything that needs to be said. I'll stick with the ungodly every day of the week. Far less hypocritical and a hell of a lot smarter
Religious archaeologist is a contradiction in terms. Anyone who goes out to find evidence that the bible is true will succeed even if he has to make it up....as they have done extensively in the past.
did I?? i don't remember bbut i know from my readings they do what secular ones do, they stick with like minded people who support their finds. i think you would find this true on both sides of the fence. there are some, like me, who go outside of the tight little circle to make sure the truth is found.All these christian assholes rely on the writings of other christian assholes. They don't dare step outside of that tight little circle.
You pointed out that Kitchen was extensively quoted by other bible-thumpers....whereas the modern archaeological community seems to have disregarded him. In a sense they do the same with Albright and some of the early archaeologists. They pay them lip service...much as a corporation keeps a picture of its founder in the headquarters lobby...but they try to distance themselves from their early theories or methods.
like i said... anyways, humphreys makes some good points, worth talking about and so does harrison i do not exclude too many authors if they are constructive and make good points.Not when it comes to bible thumpers. They are all assholes.
you'll notice i am ignoring both john and marduk as they are incapable of constructing anything worthwhile to read, which goes for my readings in archaeology and ancient history.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:54 am
okay getme a name and i will see if i know him, please.That's not the name and this guy was interviewed on a recent History Channel special.
if you want to be scientific or archaeological, then personal opinions aren't allowed.Glad you enjoyed it. It's still true and the bible is still horseshit
like i said, not everyone is serious or good, just like the secular side.Religious archaeologist is a contradiction in terms. Anyone who goes out to find evidence that the bible is true will succeed even if he has to make it up....as they have done extensively in the past
i quoted a non-religious source and they provided the biographical information and status so i am figuring that he is well known beyond religious circles. his ramses book is $240 approx. used, so it must be some good work there. Humphreys quotes him, but then they work at the same university.You pointed out that Kitchen was extensively quoted by other bible-thumpers....whereas the modern archaeological community seems to have disregarded him.
i read them,i exclude their fanciful conclusions especially whenthey base it upon personal interpretation and not truth. i have fernand braudel's book 'memory and the mediterranean' which is basically a broad history of the area around that sea and even he says (talking about crete) that 'experts rarely agree' (pg. 118)You only exclude authors who point out to you that your bible is hopelessly compromised by real evidence
so if they have a problem in determining secular dates, what are they going to do with biblical accounts? here is what he says about the plague of darkness on pg. 119:
"Driven by a north wind (talking about santorini's explosion) the toxic clouds reached as far as Syria and the Nile Delta. Yhe biblical book of Exodus speaks of terrifying darkness for three days, during which the Jews held captive by the pharaoh took the opportunity to escape. Some people have tried to match this up with the Santorini eruption. Is it too fanciful? Perhaps. Chronologically, itis hard to reconcile the two. But in 1945, I saw with my own eyes the black clouds arising from the terrible bombing of Hamburg: a hundred kilometers away, we literally experienced darkness at noon. The Krakatoa explosion plunged places 200 kilometers away into total darkness."
so this tells us that the possibilityof that darkness happening prior to the exodus is a reality just that we are not sure of the source of that plague at this time other than God. God could have used that explosion or any other eruption for thatmatter to cause the darkness experienced by the Egyptians.
so i don't exclude books, i look for what is evidence that leads me tothe truth, maybe to you that is a pre-drawn conclusion because i start with the Bible but it doesn't mean i am only looking in a closed circle for my evidence.
John and Marduk know nothing, they just say they words you want to hear so you will leave them alone.John and marduk have a far better appreciation of these issues than you do.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:18 am
Ach I distinctly remember reading from Min that SCarlett O Hara is not a real person because Atlanta exists .Same goes for the Exodus.Using the eruption of Santorini to prove it happend leads nowhere .Having a problem with elementary logic thinking ?
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:45 am
There's a new Exodus show coming out on the History Channel in which some guy tries to link Santorini to Exodus AND the expulsion of the Hyksos by Pharoah Ahmose I in 1500 BC.
Several problems with that come to mind...
First off, Santorini blew up around 1624, second Ahmose I drove out "rulers from Canaan" not "slaves from Canaan" and third, the Hyksos did not think of themselves as Israelites as they never used the term either.
It does show the depth of desperation that bible thumpers will go to breathe life into their fables.
Of course, in this case the guy trying to "prove" it is re-writing it which is not going to satisfy the archies of the world.
Several problems with that come to mind...
First off, Santorini blew up around 1624, second Ahmose I drove out "rulers from Canaan" not "slaves from Canaan" and third, the Hyksos did not think of themselves as Israelites as they never used the term either.
It does show the depth of desperation that bible thumpers will go to breathe life into their fables.
Of course, in this case the guy trying to "prove" it is re-writing it which is not going to satisfy the archies of the world.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:49 am
new ?There's a new Exodus show coming out on the History Channel
only in america
i saw it on tv 6 months ago
canada and the uk got it first
its a load of the same old bollox
except this time
santorini did everything
the best bit is when he claims that it was the eruption of santorini that was the pillar of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by night
despite the fact that santorini was over the horizon from the sinai
this the narrator explains was because at night the glow from the volcano lit up the smoke cloud emanating from it
they didn't cover however how a mountain to the north leads you across the desert to the east
it probably actually involved some trick with mirrors held by YHWH
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:05 am
I suppose one could make a case for saying that, as the Hyksos were concentrated in the Nile Delta (their capital was at Avaris) the effects of the Santorini blast would have hit their base of operations much harder, either through tidal waves or simple ash fallout. It is not too much of a stretch to speculate that the cumulative effects of Santorini may have inflicted enough damage on the Hyksos to allow the formation of a revolt in the up-river area of the country.
In fact, the whole notion of a "revolt" is speculative. An alternate theory is that the Hyksos dominated the Delta but were never able to completely dominate the entire country. Ahmose I, while generally given credit for establishing the 18th Dynasty was, in fact, the son of Seqenenre-Tao II of the 17th Dynasty and both his father and brother had battled the Hyksos before Ahmose came along to win the final victory.
In a context of power politics it can be easily suggested that the southern Egyptian rulers of the 17th Dynasty merely seized the opportunity to move on the weakened Hyksos after the blast and only after a long and arduous campaign did they successfully evict them.
Ahmose also chased them back to Canaan and got a little payback for Egypt.
None of this would help the bible story though which does not allow for any deviation from the party line.
In fact, the whole notion of a "revolt" is speculative. An alternate theory is that the Hyksos dominated the Delta but were never able to completely dominate the entire country. Ahmose I, while generally given credit for establishing the 18th Dynasty was, in fact, the son of Seqenenre-Tao II of the 17th Dynasty and both his father and brother had battled the Hyksos before Ahmose came along to win the final victory.
In a context of power politics it can be easily suggested that the southern Egyptian rulers of the 17th Dynasty merely seized the opportunity to move on the weakened Hyksos after the blast and only after a long and arduous campaign did they successfully evict them.
Ahmose also chased them back to Canaan and got a little payback for Egypt.
None of this would help the bible story though which does not allow for any deviation from the party line.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:25 pm
actually a coupleof dates have been presented for the explosion, one was around 1628 b.c. and the other was a larger time frame 1650 to 1500 b.c.First off, Santorini blew up around 1624
a lot also depends on when you date the exodus. humphreys is certainthat it was during Ramses II's time while others place just after or just before him.
humphrey's theory is that pharaoh didn't die when the red sea came flooding back but lived long after that defeat and left israel alone allowing them to strengthen as a nation.
rene, i think it would be best that you stop assuming what i believe and frame your posts intelligently , your subtle way of writing is very insulting and makes you look like a child.Same goes for the Exodus.Using the eruption of Santorini to prove it happend leads nowhere
now if you read the post correctly, you will see that i clearly referred that quote as to what the author said not me. ignoring the point and addressing a fictitious one doesn't help your argument.It does show the depth of desperation that bible thumpers will go to breathe life into their fables
braudel is not a bible thumper.
i have no problems with santorini being uesd to help Israel make their exodus, but that changes a lot of dates and we would have to see how things line up after that time. as i stated the earliest time limit given was 1500 b.c. but the accept time is in the 1600's b.c. but with ancient history being subjective both limits could be wrong.None of this would help the bible story though which does not allow for any deviation from the party line.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:37 pm
Arch....
If a volcanic eruption was the basis for the story it is all out of whack.
We KNOW what happens when a volcano explodes. It has happened enough in historic times.
They can play all the mind games they want but in order for the story to work the Hebrews HAD to have been standing on the shoreline at the time that the water receded so they could get across in time for the waters to flood back and kill the Egyptians.
The tsunamis happen at the beginning of the sequence, not at the end.
Your bible claims that Egypt had to suffer through its ten plagues BEFORE the Hebrews were allowed to leave. But the effects of volcanic ash leading to frogs and lice and whatever would happen AFTER the tsunami...NOT BEFORE.
The sequence here is not in question.
FIRST the Volcano Explodes.
The Ash blows into the air and the tsunamis radiate out from ground zero.
An hour later the tsunami hits the Egyptian coast.
THEN the ash begins to settle making life miserable for the survivors.
Santorini may well have disrupted the workings of the entire Bronze Age culture of the region. I'm sure the effects were devastating and there would have been no international relief effort.
However, there is no way in hell it can be used to support a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
If a volcanic eruption was the basis for the story it is all out of whack.
We KNOW what happens when a volcano explodes. It has happened enough in historic times.
They can play all the mind games they want but in order for the story to work the Hebrews HAD to have been standing on the shoreline at the time that the water receded so they could get across in time for the waters to flood back and kill the Egyptians.
The tsunamis happen at the beginning of the sequence, not at the end.
Your bible claims that Egypt had to suffer through its ten plagues BEFORE the Hebrews were allowed to leave. But the effects of volcanic ash leading to frogs and lice and whatever would happen AFTER the tsunami...NOT BEFORE.
The sequence here is not in question.
FIRST the Volcano Explodes.
The Ash blows into the air and the tsunamis radiate out from ground zero.
An hour later the tsunami hits the Egyptian coast.
THEN the ash begins to settle making life miserable for the survivors.
Santorini may well have disrupted the workings of the entire Bronze Age culture of the region. I'm sure the effects were devastating and there would have been no international relief effort.
However, there is no way in hell it can be used to support a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:54 pm
'sigh' i said i had no problems with it, not that i accepted it yet or agreed with it.
the effects of santorini was devastating and it made krakatoa look like a pimple being popped thus its influence is felt.
at this point, i doubt if we will find the answer on this because it is just too long ago and the egyptians never kept records of their disgraces. even in their battle with the Hittites, they would not admit defeat but called it a stalemate:
from Humphrey's pg.258---
"Incidentally, many people doubt the historicity of the Exodus because Egyptian texts do not refer tothis event at all. However, the fact is that Egyptian texts boast of Egyptian victories but rarely mention Egyptian defeats. For example, historians now accept that the famous battle of qadesh, in about 1274 b.c. in which Ramses II fought the Hittite king, ended in stalemate. However, both sides claimed a victory in their texts describing the battle. It would therefore be surprising to find Egyptian texts referring to the Exodus andto the defeat of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea by a bunchof Israelite slaves."
this goes in concert with what i posted earlier about what R.K. Harrison wrote concerning the sanitizing of Egyptian history to present to future generations a 'correct' version of Egyptian achievements.
at this time i do not rule out santorini nor am i convinced totally that it was involved, itis a possibility and that is all it is.
humphrey's has a good theory on the partingof the red sea that would not require a tsunami which maybe next time i will quote for discussion.
the effects of santorini was devastating and it made krakatoa look like a pimple being popped thus its influence is felt.
at this point, i doubt if we will find the answer on this because it is just too long ago and the egyptians never kept records of their disgraces. even in their battle with the Hittites, they would not admit defeat but called it a stalemate:
from Humphrey's pg.258---
"Incidentally, many people doubt the historicity of the Exodus because Egyptian texts do not refer tothis event at all. However, the fact is that Egyptian texts boast of Egyptian victories but rarely mention Egyptian defeats. For example, historians now accept that the famous battle of qadesh, in about 1274 b.c. in which Ramses II fought the Hittite king, ended in stalemate. However, both sides claimed a victory in their texts describing the battle. It would therefore be surprising to find Egyptian texts referring to the Exodus andto the defeat of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea by a bunchof Israelite slaves."
this goes in concert with what i posted earlier about what R.K. Harrison wrote concerning the sanitizing of Egyptian history to present to future generations a 'correct' version of Egyptian achievements.
at this time i do not rule out santorini nor am i convinced totally that it was involved, itis a possibility and that is all it is.
humphrey's has a good theory on the partingof the red sea that would not require a tsunami which maybe next time i will quote for discussion.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:21 pm
archaeologist wrote:'sigh' i said i had no problems with it, not that i accepted it yet or agreed with it.
the effects of santorini was devastating and it made krakatoa look like a pimple being popped thus its influence is felt.
at this point, i doubt if we will find the answer on this because it is just too long ago and the egyptians never kept records of their disgraces. even in their battle with the Hittites, they would not admit defeat but called it a stalemate:
from Humphrey's pg.258---
"Incidentally, many people doubt the historicity of the Exodus because Egyptian texts do not refer tothis event at all. However, the fact is that Egyptian texts boast of Egyptian victories but rarely mention Egyptian defeats. For example, historians now accept that the famous battle of qadesh, in about 1274 b.c. in which Ramses II fought the Hittite king, ended in stalemate. However, both sides claimed a victory in their texts describing the battle. It would therefore be surprising to find Egyptian texts referring to the Exodus andto the defeat of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea by a bunchof Israelite slaves."
this goes in concert with what i posted earlier about what R.K. Harrison wrote concerning the sanitizing of Egyptian history to present to future generations a 'correct' version of Egyptian achievements.
That's just an absurd slander. The vast majority of what we know about Ancient Egypt comes from Egyptian sources. You, yourself, have mentioned the Ipuwer Papyrus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus
The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All[1] is an ancient Egyptian poem preserved in a single papyrus, Leiden Papyrus I 344, which is housed in the National Archeological Museum in Leiden.[2].
The sole surviving manuscript dates to the later 13th century BCE. The dating of the original composition of the poem is disputed, but several scholars have suggested a date between the late 12th dynasty and the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1850 BCE - 1600 BCE).[3] The theme of this work has previously been taken either as a lament inspired by the supposed chaos of the Second Intermediate Period, or as historical fiction depicting the fall of the Old Kingdom several centuries earlier, or possibly a combination of these.
Ipuwer describes Egypt as afflicted by natural disasters and in a state of social collapse. The poor have become rich, and the rich poor, and warfare, famine and death are everywhere. One symptom of this collapse is the lament that servants are leaving their servitude and acting rebelliously. Because of this, and such statements as "the River is blood", some have interpreted the document as an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible, and it is often cited as proof for the Biblical account by various religious organisations[4][5]. David Rohl recently proposed a revised chronology, dating the Exodus to the Second Intermediate Period, in which case Ipuwer might refer to that event, but Rohl's chronology has been convincingly rejected by major Egyptological authorities.[6]. However, the association of Ipuwer with the Exodus is generally rejected by Egyptologists, who if they interpret the Exodus as a historical event at all generally place it later, in the reign of Ramses II. Some have alternatively interpreted the poem's references to disturbances in nature as relating to the Thera eruption, on the assumption that this event occurred in the 17th century BC.
BTW, Kadesh WAS a draw. The Egyptians and Hittites established a border. Both sides had reached their limits of power projection given the technology available. Ramses' account of the battle describes how he was tricked and his army ambushed and only survived by heroic measures...mainly of Ramses himself but it is hardly a "sanitized" version of the battle.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:39 pm
no it is not slander andif you read the quote you would have seen the words:
which category the Ipuwer Papyrus would fall into so it is not undermining that work at all but allowing for it. you dismissed this papyrus at one time, so you use it when it suits your purpose?but rarely mention
he was tricked or just made a stupid error in judgment? hard to tell isn't it? was it his efforts or someone else's? it is not uncommon to take the credit for someone else's efforts? now do the Hittite records show support for the egyptian portrayal of events? i believe they only state their version of events, and i think you are granting a wide latitude for honesty from nations not known for such character.Ramses' account of the battle describes how he was tricked and his army ambushed and only survived by heroic measures
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:45 pm
When you get your army ambushed, it really doesn't make much difference, does it?
As I recall, you were claiming that Ipuwer substantiated the bible claims of the Exodus. It does not.
But it does exist, even if it is just a copy of the original document.
Oddly, the first person I ever saw mention the Hyksos in relation to the Exodus was Finkelstein. But of course, you would never agree with anything he says.
As I recall, you were claiming that Ipuwer substantiated the bible claims of the Exodus. It does not.
But it does exist, even if it is just a copy of the original document.
Oddly, the first person I ever saw mention the Hyksos in relation to the Exodus was Finkelstein. But of course, you would never agree with anything he says.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:04 pm
why do you think it doesn't?It does not
it is a possibility, my readings on the exodus has led me to so many different theories that it gets to be a pain to sort it all out. humphreys is convinced that it was ramses II, and his reasoning is logical just not solid.Oddly, the first person I ever saw mention the Hyksos in relation to the Exodus was Finkelstein. But of course, you would never agree with anything he says.
i forget if hoffmeier committed to any date, if he did it may have been the tradtional time frame. the thing that bothers me about santorini being used is the pillars of smoke and fire that the israelites followed through the first part of their journey.
santorini is in the wrong direction to be of much help , so there must be another source for those pillars. another volcano? humphreys also has mt. sinai in the land of midian and not on the sinai peninsula which is an interesting take on things and plausible in the way he explains it.
i would probably read finkelstein if you hadn't held him up to be the standard for interpretation or the last word on any biblical topic.