Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:16 pm

Arch, by now everything you post is assumed to come from some unscientific bible thumper so don't worry about it.

What is shocking is the way that you uncritically jump on anything that seems to support your fables. You should realize by now that your side is not above lying to you to make points....and to keep those shekels pouring in to the Church of the Holy $.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:28 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:C'mon archaeologist, give 'em some references to like.

I ain't seen you givin' up none.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:30 pm

Frank, I have provided much to google, I'm not a library you know.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:34 pm

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:34 pm

I know I told you somewhere that I am unable to google. How much trouble is it to post a damn link?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:35 pm

Don't worry, arch. God will get us

it doesn't have to be that way...

C'mon archaeologist, give 'em some references to like.

they don't like any i provide whether secular or religious. you on the other hand need to start backing up your statements. it doesn't make you a library but makes you credible something even i doubt.

What is shocking is the way that you uncritically jump on anything that seems to support your fables. You should realize by now that your side is not above lying to you to make points..

given the amount of crap i have to wade through, i think that is normal i relax a bit when a religious site states something that is in line with what i propose. i do do critical analysis later though.

You should realize by now that your side is not above lying to you to make points

some do some stretch the truth a bit but i knew from previous studies that that quote is true.

I know I told you somewhere that I am unable to google

that sounds strange, is it your computer or what? can you yahoo? they give up the same informatiom as google. but frank is right, start posting some links.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:39 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Don't worry, arch. God will get us
it doesn't have to be that way...

they don't like any i provide whether secular or religious.

What we ["We?"--Ed.] "like" or do not "like" is irrelevant to your need to cite your sources.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:40 am

minimalist-- i should be getting kenneth kitchen's book soon so i will have something to talk abouty again. right now that G.V. is driving me nuts, i wouldn't be surprised if he really was marduk in disguise.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:41 am

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:22 am

minimalist-- i should be getting kenneth kitchen's book soon so i will have something to talk abouty again. right now that G.V. is driving me nuts, i wouldn't be surprised if he really was marduk in disguise.

go see your doctor immediately
ask him for some hard core tranquilisers
your mind is clearly broken for you to believe that.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:25 am

archaeologist wrote:minimalist-- i should be getting kenneth kitchen's book soon so i will have something to talk abouty again. right now that G.V. is driving me nuts, i wouldn't be surprised if he really was marduk in disguise.

Arch....he's not that much nuttier than you, you know.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:31 pm

Transferred from the other thread:

though i think you would be hard pressed to come up with an account that explains their placement on the throne, without refering to the davidic line of succession.

Archaeological evidence (you know, the stuff you hate!) has shown that not only were Judah and Israel separate entities in the Iron Age but that on two prior occasions during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages there had arisen similar Hill Country societies which were also divided into Northern and Southern entities. It has nothing to do with any silly-ass gods....it has to do with geography.

"Israel" and "Judah" were never part of the same entity. They arose independently and the whole bible nonsense reflects later Judahite monarchial attempts to justify a land grab after the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. If you want to dispute this, find some archaeological evidence and not the silly-ass assertions of your precious book.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:47 pm

Archaeological evidence (you know, the stuff you hate!) has shown that not only were Judah and Israel separate entities in the Iron Age but that on two prior occasions during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages there had arisen similar Hill Country societies which were also divided into Northern and Southern entities

we all know that that is based upon interpretation of evidence according to limited accepted data. by throwing out the exodus and the sojourn, one is not left with much to analyse or use to draw conclusions from.

as i have shown, the excuse of,'we have no evidence' is just that, an excuse for not allowing israeli history to be depicted as stated inthe biblical record.

in Genesis 50:2 we have evidence that the Israelites used egyptian methods which would confirm what i said that there would be no israeli evidence for their own culture because they adopted many ways of their host country.

it would take years after settling down in their own land before they would produce anything that resembled their own culture. remember they had not received the mosaic law till sinai, thus there own culture was developing as they wandered through the desert.

yet that idea won't be accepted because people do not want to give credence to the geographical and political claims the Israeli's have. plus they stick to what they can see which 'corrupts' their conclusions. then you add in their disbelief of the biblical record and what hope do you have of them producing anything that resembles the truth?

Israel" and "Judah" were never part of the same entity

that is because the evidence that contradicts this thinking is not accepted. now that we know that there were buildings built during the timeof david, thatthere was an alter built during joshua's time, we have corrobative evidence to support the biblical accounts.

yet no one wants to accept it sothey goontheir merry way proclaiming there is nothing to substantiate a united monarchy. even Megiddo is conveniently (whether rightly or wrongly) dated to a different time period.

you have to come up with some link or resource that states the theory that the kingship started with Ahab's father. so far all you have said are statements without anything to prove them.. you generally say 'the archaeological evidence' well bring specifics or are you afraid that the whole theory is based upon conjecture and you don't want it scrutinized.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:40 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Archaeological evidence (you know, the stuff you hate!) has shown that not only were Judah and Israel separate entities in the Iron Age but that on two prior occasions during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages there had arisen similar Hill Country societies which were also divided into Northern and Southern entities
we all know that that is based upon interpretation of evidence according to limited accepted data. by throwing out the exodus and the sojourn, one is not left with much to analyse or use to draw conclusions from.

Actually, as you only read books by authors who tell you what you want to hear, you have no idea what the evidence is.

as i have shown, the excuse of,'we have no evidence' is just that, an excuse for not allowing israeli history to be depicted as stated inthe biblical record.

You haven't 'shown' jack shit. You have postulated a ridiculous idea that "absence of evidence = proof of existence" which is incredibly stupid even by the generally low standards that bible-thumpers use.

in Genesis 50:2 we have evidence that the Israelites used egyptian methods which would confirm what i said that there would be no israeli evidence for their own culture because they adopted many ways of their host country.

Genesis 50 is as big a pile of bullshit as Genesis 1-49. Find evidence, don't keep quoting your fairy tales.

it would take years after settling down in their own land before they would produce anything that resembled their own culture. remember they had not received the mosaic law till sinai, thus there own culture was developing as they wandered through the desert.

More of "the world according to Arch?" You decide what conditions you would like to have and then state that they exist. The Moses story was not invented until well after the time you cite. Along with such other fictional characters as Joshua it was part of the Heroic Myth created in Jerusalem around 630 BC. Of course....you won't read the books that show this to be true as you wish to persist in your state of denial.

yet that idea won't be accepted because people do not want to give credence to the geographical and political claims the Israeli's have. plus they stick to what they can see which 'corrupts' their conclusions. then you add in their disbelief of the biblical record and what hope do you have of them producing anything that resembles the truth?

The idea is not accepted because it is horseshit. Find evidence to back up your conclusions and then we can talk.

Israel" and "Judah" were never part of the same entity
that is because the evidence that contradicts this thinking is not accepted. now that we know that there were buildings built during the timeof david, thatthere was an alter built during joshua's time, we have corrobative evidence to support the biblical accounts.

As noted above, you have no idea what the evidence is because you refuse to read books which would call your fiction into question. I'm sure god would appreciate your slavish devotion to stupidity....if he existed.

yet no one wants to accept it sothey goontheir merry way proclaiming there is nothing to substantiate a united monarchy. even Megiddo is conveniently (whether rightly or wrongly) dated to a different time period.

Again, Finkelstein's case on Megiddo is compelling but you do not have a clue what that case might be.

you have to come up with some link or resource that states the theory that the kingship started with Ahab's father. so far all you have said are statements without anything to prove them.. you generally say 'the archaeological evidence' well bring specifics or are you afraid that the whole theory is based upon conjecture and you don't want it scrutinized.

Whether he was 'first' or not is irrelevant. We know from Assyrian, Moabite and Syrian sources that the Omrides were powerful kings who resisted the Assyrian expansion to the West who had carved out a fairly extensive 'empire'.....unlike the non-existent "Davidic Empire" the northern kingdom actually seems to have accomplished something of note on the international stage.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:55 pm

Actually, as you only read books by authors who tell you what you want to hear, you have no idea what the evidence is.

that is a false acusation if i ever heard one. usually when i read secular books i only have an idea of what they are going to say and it is usually not what i want to hear.

You haven't 'shown' jack shit

sure i have, you just don't accept and dismiss it to your realm of denial. it is because i do not agree with you and can back it up that pisses you off the most. you would be happy if i just went with what you say.

More of "the world according to Arch

common sense and logic.

Find evidence to back up your conclusions and then we can talk.

i asked you for specifics and you never supply any, i have done so but you just ignore it since it isn't in your accept list of proofs.

unlike the non-existent "Davidic Empire" the northern kingdom actually seems to have accomplished something of note on the international stage.

that is something you can't prove and since we are getting more and more evidence from his time period we are seeing that he was real, and since we have the stele that mentions the 'house of david' and there were no kings after Ahab with that name, it stands to reason he and his father were not the first but that david established his line for the throne long before Ahab was even considered to exist.

i am not the one who is avoiding reality.