Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

Hmmm.....


I mention Jean Marie and Michelle does a "test page."



Coincidence?

[Guest]

Not according to ancient history revisionists. If we believe that the bible is incorrect, why not the accepted dating of the old school establishment. Even Newton thought something was wrong, and there are more and more historians beginning to think that Egyptian history does not go back quite as far as has been believed all these years

now youare sounding like r.k. harrison whom minimalist dismissed. if you think that the egyptian history is wrong, then what do you propose?

They all seem to agree that it could be 300 to 400 years off

so you are saying that Thera is back in then?

We have records for most of the pharoahs of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, fragmentary in many cases but they cannot be dismissed

the problem with fragmentary is that the accounts could go in any direction and most likely not in the one you would want.

[Minimalist]

You are still looking for phantom Israelites in Middle Kingdom Egypt.

They did not exist for several centuries more.

[Guest]

***

[Guest]

They did not exist for several centuries more.

yet you provide no links or sources to back that up nor can you say where they originated from, if that were true. along with backing up it up with credible evidence. having finkelstein or dever say, 'we think' or 'we suggest' is not proof nor is it credible. come up with something substantial to back your claim up.

i have at least explained and shown why there is confusion in the study of their origination. Here are a couple of quotes to get you angry. taken from 'Old Testament Times by R.K. Harrison pg. 193:

" The question of a capital city was of some importance, and David displayed considerable political acumen by choosing a site that was outside the strict territorial range of the Israelite tribes, while at the same time being near the center of his newly united country. the proposed capital was Jerusalem, which at the time was a jebusite stronghold, firmly established on a rocky plateau over 3000 ft. above the Jordon plain at Jericho. So impregnable did the native defenders consider the city that they taunted David and his men in a manner thy shortly regretted. precisely how the 'stronghold of Zion' was taken is uncertain, and until recently the passage relating to its capture (II Sam. 5:8) appeared to indicate access by means of a 'gutter' {KJV} or 'watershaft {RSV} When Sir Charles Warren was conducting early excavation at jerusalem, this theory seemed to be substantiated by the discovery of an underground system instituted by the Canaanite inhabitants of th site around 2000 b.c."

then to pg. 194:

"While it would not have been impossible to gain access to the fortress by this route, it would have presented formible obstacles to a raiding party. It is not necessary to argue for such a procedure, however, for Ugaritic studies have shown that the word translated 'gutter' or 'watershaft' is a canaanite word for 'hook'. Thus access to the city was gained by means of grappling irons, scaling hooks, and other devices of a similar nature. Excavations at Zion, the lower eastern hill of Jerusalem, unearthed a stout stone wall in which a large breach had been made, probably dating back to the time of David."

[Minimalist]

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-A ... 0684869128


Read the book!

Not everything can be reduced to the simplicity of a few lines of "scripture" for those without the attention span to study.

Get the book, check his footnotes and bibliography, and look for the source material if you wish.

You already know the gist of the proposal and I have previously outlined the differences between Finkelstein and Dever. The differences are not substantial as far as you are concerned.

[Minimalist]

Harrison is obviously a bible thumping idiot. You seem to run with that crowd.

[Guest]

then over to page 201 we have the following:

"According to Rezon, the general of Hadad seized control of damascus, and in an attempt to cherck the threat posed by this move Solomon fortified the ancient Bronze Age city of Hazor. Excavations there have shown that in the reign of Solomon it was a center for chariotry,and some of the hitching posts going back to that period have been recovered. The Lebanon region was similarly fortified, and to guard against Edomite raiding parties Solomon protected the flow of copper and other goods from the port of Ezion-geber, northward through the Arabah.

Where as David had refused to employ chariots, Solomon saw their value as a military weapon, and he built up a number of of divisions that were stationed in stratigic positions throughout his kingdom. These fortified towns included jerusalem, Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo and archaeological excavations at these sites have uncovered the remains of chariot enclosures and stables."

**i should mention that Harrison does state that Megiddo (and only Megiddo) is in doubt and could be attributed to the time of Ahab. Yet one location does not over rule all and place in doubt their remains. **

[Minimalist]

Solomon, if he existed at all, was a minor chieftain who probably had to kick the sheep shit off his shoes every time he walked out of his tent.

Recounting the opinions of pious assholes changes nothing in the archaeological record which says that all of your nonsense never happened.

Find proof, Arch. Real "proof." The rest of it is worthless.

[Guest]

Then, min, who built the grand Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem circa 1000 B.C., just the "goat-roper" King David?

[Minimalist]

Tell you what, GV, when you find some artifacts from it, ask again.

Right now, it was a figment of the imagination of the priests of Josiah's court who wrote the whole silly story in the late 7th century.

(And archaeology has never found a single artifact from it.)

[Guest]

"Right now" in your blinkered vision.

[Minimalist]

Actually, I think a person has to be a complete asshole to believe any of that pious nonsense.

[Guest]

Harrison is obviously a bible thumping idiot. You seem to run with that crowd.

your prjudice and hatred undermine anything you say.;

Read the book

why? you won't read any of mine.

Get the book, check his footnotes and bibliography, and look for the source material if you wish.

obviously you are too lazy to back up your statements so why should i do your work for you? i have my own to do.

Recounting the opinions of pious assholes changes nothing in the archaeological record which says that all of your nonsense never happened

that is all you do with finkelstein and dever, and you still don't provide proof. what archaeological record, you won't go into specifics but hide behind those general words. i have already shown that the archaeological record is fought over, as it is the same evidence, by all archaeologists.

you just like living in denial of the facts and have chosen to align yourself with those who contend that there was no israel.

Find proof, Arch. Real "proof." The rest of it is worthless

yes and this applies to your argument as well, you never cite anything other finkelstein and dever so you time to pony up.

Tell you what, GV, when you find some artifacts from it, ask again

you wouldn't accept it even if you were provided some: i.e. look at your reaction when B.A.S.E. declared they found the ark and the remnants of the wood. don't give me this crap that you want artifacts. artic;les have ben posted concerning actual buildings and the first thing you did was dismiss it.

[Guest]

That, coming from someone who thinks that primordial slime morphed to become him? Pleeeeeease.