Page 109 of 122
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:29 pm
by Guest
okay, here is a link cdoncerning the joshua alter found on mt. ebal. kind of interesting to read, i haven't finishedit yet but it is worth sharing now:
http://ebal.haifa.ac.il/ebal06.html
Thus far, archaeological research has not been bountiful on the period of the Israelite settlement. In most of the major places mentioned in the stories ofthe conquest, such as Jericho, 'Ai, 'Arad, and others, no strata of destruction from the Late Bronze Age which would accord with the biblical account have been found. Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore. Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 B.C.E.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin.
**bold print mine**
so again we have information that contradicts finkelstein and those he represents. the whole story is that the evidence is there, it just depends on which interpretation you want to listen to.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:35 pm
by Minimalist
YOU FLAMING ASSHOLE!!!!
THE BOLD PRINT IS FINKELSTEIN'S!
(Which you would know if you read the book!)
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:40 pm
by Guest
YOU FLAMING ASSHOLE!!!!
do you want me to re-post the quote unaltered? since i know what i did, and since i highlghted those words, you are out of line. here it is again:
Thus far, archaeological research has not been bountiful on the period of the Israelite settlement. In most of the major places mentioned in the stories ofthe conquest, such as Jericho, 'Ai, 'Arad, and others, no strata of destruction from the Late Bronze Age which would accord with the biblical account have been found. Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore. Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 B.C.E.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin.
see no bold print andif you took the time toread the article, you would see it came not from finkelstein but adam zartel himself.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:51 pm
by Minimalist
Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 B.C.E.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin.
You have just posted Finkelstein's findings in a nutshell.....(damned appropriate for you.) He might quibble about the start date of 1250 BC...if you recall the earlier dispute between him and Amihai Mazar over high and low chronologies, but as was noted the +/- on c14 dating renders the distance between them moot.
Israelite settlement began in the hill country at the end of the LBA. This is generally now accepted by all archaeologists as conclusive.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:02 pm
by Guest
You have just posted Finkelstein's findings in a nutshell
only concerning settlements not the source of the people making the settlements.
with the alter discovered, we now have the possibility of physical proof that that the origin of the people is as the Bible says not as finkelstein states.
i highly doubt that finkelstein can prove his theory that the israelites arose anywhere other than what the Bible says.
p.s. you owe me an apology
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:24 pm
by Frank Harrist
Yeah I think "flaming asshole" is a little harsh. You been eatin' jalepenos, arch?
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:33 pm
by Guest
***
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:34 pm
by Guest
Has this arch apologized for his remark about the Jews in WWII?
--J.D.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:05 pm
by ed
Doctor X wrote:Minimalist wrote:YOU FLAMING ASSHOLE!!!!
THE BOLD PRINT IS FINKELSTEIN'S!
(Which you would know if you read the book!)
archaeologist . . . is . . . DANISH?!!!!
--J.D.
oh my god
"to know all is to understand all"
- Waugh, Brideshead Revisited
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:20 pm
by Minimalist
archaeologist wrote:You have just posted Finkelstein's findings in a nutshell
only concerning settlements not the source of the people making the settlements.
with the alter discovered, we now have the possibility of physical proof that that the origin of the people is as the Bible says not as finkelstein states.
i highly doubt that finkelstein can prove his theory that the israelites arose anywhere other than what the Bible says.
p.s. you owe me an apology
Bullshit. For someone who won't read the book you claim to know an awful lot about what his theories may be.
You are completely and totally wrong but you did, by accident, finally post something which is archaeologically accurate for current mainstream archaeologists.
No one can prove anything to you because you are completely blinded by the stupidity written in your fairy tales.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:21 pm
by Minimalist
Frank Harrist wrote:Yeah I think "flaming asshole" is a little harsh. You been eatin' jalepenos, arch?
Not in the context of him posting Finkelstein's theory by accident.
Besides.....Fucking Flaming Asshole would have been a little harsh.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:51 pm
by Guest
You been eatin' jalepenos, arch?
just once a week.
Not in the context of him posting Finkelstein's theory by accident
there was no credit given to finkelstein in the article so maybe he stole it or it really wasn't his to begin with.
No one can prove anything to you because you are completely blinded by the stupidity written in your fairy tales
that is just the way it goes, if it disagrees with the Bible then there is something wrong with the theory not the scriptures.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:00 pm
by Guest
***
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:23 pm
by Minimalist
there was no credit given to finkelstein in the article
Exactly! You jumped all over it like a blonde to mink until you found out that it was what you have been ignorantly arguing against for much of the last six months.
I am enjoying the irony.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:56 pm
by Guest
Exactly! You jumped all over it like a blonde to mink until you found out that it was what you have been ignorantly arguing against for much of the last six months
but the difference is, finkelstein says they came from canaanites and magically appeared. this article relates it to the exodus and the conquest bith of which finkelstein denies