Archaeologica.org

yes they do as they fail to take into account many facts. after the crossing of jordon, the israelites spent a lot of time in conquest which means that they did not have the time nor the ability to start production until they had finished conquering the land.

They didn't cross the Jordan. They didn't spend any time in conquest.

These bible myths have been demolished by real science. You can jump up and down and hold your breath till you turn blue...which might be an improvement....but you are not going to change the fact that the bible is nothing but a load of shit written much later on and concocted for a specific political purpose.

MichelleH wrote:another test page.....

I would think that we would have failed by now.

another test page

i give tests, i don't take them.

They didn't cross the Jordan. They didn't spend any time in conquest

according to those who do not believe but that is a great denial statement.

of course i should come back with---'did too'

but you are not going to change the fact that the bible is nothing but a load of shit written much later on and concocted for a specific political purpose.

please post someone credible that says this. i won't believe it of course but at least i could look at someone else's words and see where they error.

How much more credible than "the bible is a load of shit" can one get?

It's, at best, a not very pretty story of a psychotic god and his less than dutiful worshippers who cannot ever seem to get the message that they are supposed to worship his sorry old ass.

And the bullshit about his so-called 'son' is ever dumber.

since we have the thread, 'the exodus decoded' i will write posts for that topic there so we can move this ine ontothe next subject for a 100 page debate.

what shall it be? the conquest? David & Solomon, the united kingdom years? or jerusalem; big city or goat herder's town?

let me know

I'll be a sport.

Pick your poison.

i am leaning towards a discussion on jerusalem.

Good choice.

The archaeological evidence says it was a small, insignificant village at the alleged time of David and Solomon.

It's population and influence rose dramatically after the Assyrians overran Israel and its population was swelled by refugees.

What have you got?

The archaeological evidence says it was a small, insignificant village at the alleged time of David and Solomon.

i wish you would stop making generalizations like that. we both know that is a finkelstein and dever misconception and interpretation. i ralize that it may not have been the size of Rome but it certainly wasn't the size of Tombstone either.

What have you got?

don't know yet, i will have to check my books first.

Go ahead. You've got nothing and Finkelstein and Dever are merely the front men for the movement.

The facts are well established and accepted by all but the blindest biblical 'scholars'.

one thing i noticed about your posting habits--you never post an opinion first, if at all. you like to stand back and criticize avoiding presenting what you think while hiding behind finkelstein and dever.

so ladies first... (in other words you first)

Good choice.

The archaeological evidence says it was a small, insignificant village at the alleged time of David and Solomon.

It's population and influence rose dramatically after the Assyrians overran Israel and its population was swelled by refugees.

WTH do you call that? They have convinced me with their evidence.

You have convinced no one with your blathering.

They have convinced me with their evidence.

that isn't evidence but just statements

i imagine your information comes from finkelstein and dever?

archaeologist wrote:

They have convinced me with their evidence.

that isn't evidence but just statements

This is all very convenient on your part. You refuse to read the book because you just know they are out to destroy your fucking fairy tales so that way you never have to see the evidence and are free to dismiss it.

You are an intellectual phony, arch.

YOu can rely on the bible all you want - it is not going to make it true.