Archaeologica.org

You think so, huh? Here's another bible thumper who has problems with Kitchen's methods. I thought you guys weren't allowed to fight among yourselves? Jesus doesn't like that or something

All of this is largely irrelevant though since Kitchen is out of touch with the current reality of archaeology which has Israel arising in Canaan at the end of the LBA.

archaeologist wrote:

You think so, huh? Here's another bible thumper who has problems with Kitchen's methods. I thought you guys weren't allowed to fight among yourselves? Jesus doesn't like that or something

well since you didn't give a name i will let this pass. your definition of Bible thumper is too inclusive and non-sophisticated.

All of this is largely irrelevant though since Kitchen is out of touch with the current reality of archaeology which has Israel arising in Canaan at the end of the LBA.

ha ha ha. your preaching of this doesn't make it any truer than when you first said it.

There was a link that you could have clicked on

They were the same guy.

archaeologist wrote:

There was a link that you could have clicked on

there was no link, you put it in quotes not wrapped in urls.

Only your own.

Despite the criticisms I have made here, I do not think Kitchen’s work is either poor, wrong in many cases, or unnecessary. He is a better Egyptologist than biblical scholar, and he is actually cute sometimes, if one can avoid the stinger that always lurks inside his attempts at humor. In this, he rather reminds me of the biblical Joab, whose defense of David was always constant, even when it was not always particularly helpful. The value of Kitchen’s work is his dogged insistence upon a reading of relevant texts and an assessment of relevant archaeological recoveries as the appropriate context in which to read OT narratives. And it is precisely here that minimalists must be challenged to respond. They have called for dependence upon extra-biblical evidence, and Kitchen marshals an impressive amount of just such evidence for their assessment. Should his minimalist opponents fail to answer the specific evidence Kitchen has brought forward, we shall be forced to conclude that they cannot. Their responses are much to be anticipated. In the meantime, the work done by a vast majority of scholars of the Hebrew Bible will continue to be somewhere in the middle between the "Lion of Liverpool" snarling on the right and the "Hounds of Copenhagen" growling on the left.

About 1900 BC, the cult of Brahm was carried to the Middle and Near East by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers

Indian historian Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He states that the Aryans, unable to defeat the Asuras (The mercantile caste that once ruled in the Indus Valley or Harappans) spent so many years fighting covertly against the Asuras, such as destroying their huge system of irrigation lakes, causing destructive flooding, that Abraham and his kindred just gave up and marched to West Asia. (See Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism.) Therefore, besides being driven out of Northern India by floods, the Aryans also forced Indian merchants, artisans, and educated classes to flee to West Asia.