Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:30 pm**

Oh indeed!

--J.D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:54 am**

Ok, here's an idea. LETS ALL TRY TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL. Show your intelligence by showing your manners. Knock off the insults and deal with the issue at hand. I'm talking to arch, Dr. X, Bob, John, Ed, Rene, and anybody else I might have missed. This sounds like children on the playground calling each other names and using so much abusive language. Lets tone down the cursing a bit too. I suggest you all read the rules again. We have all broken them and I think we need to try a little harder to get along with each other. I'm not a stickler for the rules, but some of us aren't even trying to be civil. The discussion will go much smoother and stay on topic if we'll all not be so quick to take offense and hurl insults. It's like congress in here!

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:20 pm**

i think a lot of misconceptions and assumptions have been made about israel's past which have led a lot of scholars down the wrong trail and they missed discovery the truth. yes, i put finkelstein and dever in that group because they limit their conclusions to what they find and not contend with other factors.

i re-posted my own statement to get this back on track and i do feel that many, many archaeologists fail to consider evidence, factors, motivations when analyzing the information they have found.

in the case of the exodus, i strongly feel that researchers are looking for the wrong evidence and too readily dismiss theories that may have kernals of truth inthem.

In his book 'Voicesof the Rocks' and on pg. 133, Dr. Schoch places the Thera explosion at 1410 b.c. +/- 100, despite dendrochronolgy dating:

The Thera eruption at 1410 b.c. +/- 100...happened to early andit is too small to account for all of the devastation occurring around 1200 b.c.

so in discussing the exodus, dating remains subjective and is easily manipulated by the interpretation of the archaeologist and his/her beliefs. too many clues are dismissed for the same reason.

jacobovich may have done a poor job in his work but he illustrated the turmoil that is part of this investigation and the unwillingness to examine all data. the fact that so many people disagree or have their own pet theory means we have a problem and the truth is not getting out or being looked for.

To deny the existence of the patriarchs, as some do, is tantamount to saying that the revolutionary leaders were created to justify an illegal action and to create a legitimate history for the origin of america.

to omit scripture when talking about the Holy Land is the same as saying all the histories written by americans about america is invalid and cannot be taken as accurate or honest, etc.

what one does by advocating such an action is to create a playing field which produces the desirded result, which usually means no biblical accuracy.this type of thinking and action is not honest, objectivenor even archaeological.

i feel and believe that the exodus and the sojourn took place, i have presnted thoughts to back that believe up. i just think that we are looking for the wrong evidence and need to decipher what culture, languages among other indicators, Abraham and his descendants practiced and then maybe we can get on the right track to finding the correct evidence to prove such an event.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:31 pm**

Schoch is fighting an uphill battle on that one. Scholars give it 1624 +/- 25 years.

so in discussing the exodus, dating remains subjective and is easily manipulated by the interpretation of the archaeologist and his/her beliefs. too many clues are dismissed for the same reason.

Again, everyone is out to get your poor bible. If only it had to some facts to back it up it would have fewer problems.

jacobovich may have done a poor job in his work but he illustrated the turmoil that is part of this investigation and the unwillingness to examine all data. the fact that so many people disagree or have their own pet theory means we have a problem and the truth is not getting out or being looked for.

Poor job? He stops just short of outright lying in a number of places.

To deny the existence of the patriarchs, as some do, is tantamount to saying that the revolutionary leaders were created to justify an illegal action and to create a legitimate history for the origin of america.

We have records of the Founding Fathers. The world of the patriarchs never existed. It was created from nothing by fanciful writers trying to make a point. Surely even you can see the difference?

to omit scripture when talking about the Holy Land is the same as saying all the histories written by americans about america is invalid and cannot be taken as accurate or honest, etc.

Omitted? No. Taken with an enormous grain of salt? Yes.

what one does by advocating such an action is to create a playing field which produces the desirded result, which usually means no biblical accuracy.this type of thinking and action is not honest, objectivenor even archaeological.

There is so little 'biblical accuracy' in the record that it is hard to do anything else. That is not the fault of the scholars who have disproven it. In fact, it may well be the fault of the Robinsons and Albrights who set an impossibly high standard by pronouncing the bible to have been historically accurate in the first place.

i feel and believe that the exodus and the sojourn took place, i have presnted thoughts to back that believe up. i just think that we are looking for the wrong evidence and need to decipher what culture, languages among other indicators, Abraham and his descendants practiced and then maybe we can get on the right track to finding the correct evidence to prove such an event.

You feel that way because of Faith....not because of fact. What you believe is almost irrelevant. Unsubstantiated opinion is virtually worthless in any sort of scientific setting but it is all you ever bring to the table.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:55 pm**

Schoch is fighting an uphill battle on that one. Scholars give it 1624 +/- 25 years.

even Pellegrino disagrees with him and places the date at 1625ish.

Again, everyone is out to get your poor bible. If only it had to some facts to back it up it would have fewer problems.

actually ....yes. we do but noone accepts it. again i cite the aaish article.

Poor job? He stops just short of outright lying in a number of places.

I was being polite....remember, Frank wants us to be nice. ha ha. i still can't get over that greek theory. makes me laugh everytime i think about it.

We have records of the Founding Fathers. The world of the patriarchs never existed

how do you know they weren't forged ort that it was some great conspiracy? no one is alive thatwas there to set the record straight or to give an eye witness account? then the second part of your sentence...who is in denial now?

Omitted? No. Taken with an enormous grain of salt? Yes

i prefer the word 'omitted' since it isn't just the Bible that is ignored but Israel's own historical records as well.

There is so little 'biblical accuracy' in the record that it is hard to do anything else

o come now, you andothers just ignore the artifacts or other evidence that suppports the biblical record.

You feel that way because of Faith....not because of fact. What you believe is almost irrelevant. Unsubstantiated opinion is virtually worthless in any sort of scientific setting but it is all you ever bring to the table.

remember i just presented the theory as that a theory that needs more work, yet it makes sense to me and since it takes time to find and produce evidence, be patient and mull over what i have posted concerning the lack of remains.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:34 pm**

Frank Harrist wrote:Ok, here's an idea. LETS ALL TRY TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL. Show your intelligence by showing your manners. Knock off the insults and deal with the issue at hand. I'm talking to arch, Dr. X, Bob, John, Ed, Rene, and anybody else I might have missed.

Poopy head!

Let us keep this simple then:

Where is the evidence for an Exodus and/or Conquest other than stories.

We have stories about King Arthur, Gilgamesh, Orestes, and Elvis. Did they all exist too?

--J.D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:49 pm**

Frank Harrist wrote:
Ok, here's an idea. LETS ALL TRY TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL. Show your intelligence by showing your manners. Knock off the insults and deal with the issue at hand. I'm talking to arch, Dr. X, Bob, John, Ed, Rene, and anybody else I might have missed.

Poopy head!

I rest my case.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:54 pm**

Coming from a Marxist. . . .

--J. "I Never Forget a Face, But in Your Case I will Make an Exception!" D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:05 pm**

archaeologist wrote:

Again, everyone is out to get your poor bible. If only it had to some facts to back it up it would have fewer problems.
actually ....yes. we do but noone accepts it. again i cite the aaish article.

Which one was that?

We have records of the Founding Fathers. The world of the patriarchs never existed
how do you know they weren't forged ort that it was some great conspiracy? no one is alive thatwas there to set the record straight or to give an eye witness account? then the second part of your sentence...who is in denial now?

You are getting desperate with that nonsense. In order to preserve your fairy tales you would willingly speculate that every document ever written was a forgery just so the bible would....what? It would still remain a forgery. You can't help it by denying anything else. It falls on its own as there is nothing to prop it up but the dubious faith of its adherents. The biblical description of the world of the patriarchs simply fails to exist. The anachronisms inherent in it can only be explained by it being a much later creation. It would be like reading that George Washington sent his air force to bomb the British at Yorktown.

Omitted? No. Taken with an enormous grain of salt? Yes
i prefer the word 'omitted' since it isn't just the Bible that is ignored but Israel's own historical records as well.

Which historical records, aside from bible nonsense, are you referring to? This is a people which scours the land for any sort of evidence they can find and you accuse them of dismissing their own history, again, just to make your bible look bad? Face the fact that it looks pretty bad on its own.

There is so little 'biblical accuracy' in the record that it is hard to do anything else
o come now, you andothers just ignore the artifacts or other evidence that suppports the biblical record.

I've been asking you for months to present exactly those artifacts or other evidence 'which support' the biblical record. You have failed miserably to produce them or it. The handful of items you have presented are either disputed or not relevant.

You feel that way because of Faith....not because of fact. What you believe is almost irrelevant. Unsubstantiated opinion is virtually worthless in any sort of scientific setting but it is all you ever bring to the table.
remember i just presented the theory as that a theory that needs more work, yet it makes sense to me and since it takes time to find and produce evidence, be patient and mull over what i have posted concerning the lack of remains.

What makes sense to me, and which is supported by current archaeological findings, is that the entire exodus story was made up centuries later. I still say you are trying to pervert "absence of evidence is not evidence of absense" into "absence of evidence = proof of existence." You are going to have a hard time getting anyone to sign on to such an asinine idea.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:42 pm**

No, I am NOT comparing archeaologist's apologetics to what I will discuss next. Let me make that clear.

It is unfortunate that the extremes show us much about how critical thinking fails. Believing that "all of the documents" of the Founding Fathers [PBUT--Ed.] could be forgeries is seriously pathetic. Then, I have heard creationists try to argue the animals on the ark were "magically shrunk"--no textual evidence for it, but "all's fair" to save a myth.

Those who expouse 9/11 myths--and ed knows we have seen some "doozies"--and Holocaust Denial are the extreme paradigms for this. So you will have, despite clear evidence to the contrary, the belief that "no plane" hit the Pentagon while "remote controlled planes" hit the towers. My "favorite" is the one that chalks it up to a Nazi-Mossad Plot--because "we all know" the Nazis created Israel. . . .

ed knows about a "Magical Flying Hat [Of Doom!--Ed.]"

Meanwhile, Holocaust Deniers will try to quibble numbers to make the whole disappear. Some are so puerile that they jump up and down about not finding "millions" of graves means that it was all a hoax.

Again, I do not equate archaeologist's motivations with that of anti-semites and facist-want-to-bes. It is the process that is the same. All come from starting with a conclusion one wants. One then cherry picks data to support it--rushing away from all contrary evidence. They will create greater and greater conspiracies to account for contrary evidence.

Thus, every SS officer who confessed to the crimes of the Holocaust are "part of the Ugly Myth"--see . . . call it a "myth" and it will . . . like . . . be a myth. American who help liberate the camps? Deluded.

So, how can someone actually believe that the tons of documents from the Founding Fathers--on both sides of the "puddle" because, you know, the British had some "opinions" on the American Revolution--were forgeries. How can someone even conceive of such a ridiculous opinion?

Simple unfortunately: it is easier to accept bigger and bigger lies to preserve the core belief--whatever it is--than admit you have been duped.

The opposition is seens as support. As more people rise to tell the creduloid he is wrong, it only validates the wrong thinking--it has to be a valid view--look at how so many people denounce it! Thus, Holocaust Deniers will spin tales of conspiracies amongst historians to "deny the truth" and "support the Ugly Myth."

Thus, apparently, world science is all in "cohoots" to make up evolution.

One must remember that early in archaeological and religious studies, scholars believed they would validate the biblical stories. Even they had to slowly admit the problems. It is not a matter of view, it is a matter of fact.

Or as the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald put it, as much as he would like to believe otherwise, the evidence show his brother killed President Kennedy along.

--J.D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:44 pm**

Which one was that?

the one i posted in current bib. arch. talking about Mazar and her find.

You are getting desperate with that nonsense

no, it was just an example, i could have picked anyone or any historical event accepted as true that have had no surviving witnesses for generations.

Which historical records, aside from bible nonsense, are you referring to?

the jewish histories. james long, i beleive mentioned them in his book, 'the riddle of the exodus'.

The handful of items you have presented are either disputed or not relevant.

only per your opinion and subsequent dismissal.

What makes sense to me, and which is supported by current archaeological findings, is that the entire exodus story was made up centuries later.

they can't even prove that nor can they even prove the J,E,P,D hypothesis becaue they have found no copies of such documents. it is not me that is lacking proof, it is you and others who accept these theories without seeing any real evidence except interpretation, extropolation and hypothesis based upon what isn't found.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm**

archaeologist wrote:. . .they can't even prove that nor can they even prove the J,E,P,D hypothesis becaue they have found no copies of such documents. it is not me that is lacking proof, it is you and others who accept these theories without seeing any real evidence except interpretation, extropolation and hypothesis based upon what isn't found.

What is the oldest Hebrew witness?

What is your alternate theory for the formation that accounts for the evidence--see Friedman for nice summaries.

Prediction: he will scurry away from this as well.

--J.D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:27 pm**

archaeologist wrote:
Which one was that?
the one i posted in current bib. arch. talking about Mazar and her find.

Oh, so on one hand you claim to reject the tendency of bible-thumpers to pronounce anything they dig up to be automatically related to the bible, and, on the other, you cling to those silly attributions with the tenacity of a bulldog? Hypocritical, on your part.

You are getting desperate with that nonsense
no, it was just an example, i could have picked anyone or any historical event accepted as true that have had no surviving witnesses for generations.

A lousy example.

Which historical records, aside from bible nonsense, are you referring to?
the jewish histories. james long, i beleive mentioned them in his book, 'the riddle of the exodus'.

A search on Google for "the Jewish Histories" turned up nothing. More of your pious fiction?

The handful of items you have presented are either disputed or not relevant.
only per your opinion and subsequent dismissal.

So, you claim that the rejection of Zertal's 'altar' is me, alone? The rest of archaeology has no input into the decision, huh?

What makes sense to me, and which is supported by current archaeological findings, is that the entire exodus story was made up centuries later.
they can't even prove that nor can they even prove the J,E,P,D hypothesis becaue they have found no copies of such documents. it is not me that is lacking proof, it is you and others who accept these theories without seeing any real evidence except interpretation, extropolation and hypothesis based upon what isn't found.

Well, if you're right than your god is a retard who can't keep his story straight...hence the contradictions, duplications and lies. I can live with that description. Can you? The documentary hypothesis at least gives "god" a little cover because his human editors were morons.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:36 pm**

Actually, I tend to think the Redactor took it less seriously than fundimentalists do now. Contradictions did not seem to bother him too much. He did not harmonize as later scholars tried with, say, the Synoptic gospels.

As I alluded elsewhere, one may not "like" Einstein, but then one is obliged to develop an alternate theory that explains observations as successfully and makes testable predictions that survive testing.

Those who have tried to reject the Documentary Hypothesis have failed. It is now merely a question of arguing of dates. I would also caution that it is not as simple as J, E, P, D, and Sometimes Y [Stop that!--Ed.] There is evidence of other source material such as the "Holiness Codes"--H--et cetera. The P Creation Myth is based on a Psalm based on Akenaton . . . Akenaten . . . The Pharoh's "Hymn to the Sun."

--J.D.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:51 pm**

based on Akenaton . . . Akenaten . . . The Pharoh's "Hymn to the Sun."

Don't start that, He'll take it as proof that the Israelites were in Egypt!

Archaeologica.org

The Exodus Decoded