Archaeologica.org

i have shown him to be incorrect

You couldn't find your ass with both hands.

it seems to be the consensus that God used natural means to bring the 9 plagues

"Natural events" don't need god.....and they certainly don't need any fictitious Hebrews, either.

The whole thing is a crock. Find some evidence to prove they were there or give it up.

Where did you show this? I don't remember seeing anything except your opinion on Finklestein.

where i have shown this is in the theory i developed and by getting minimalist to declare that finkelstien limits his archaeological excavations to a confined area outside of egypt.

Since everyone else on this board accepts or at least doesn't deny Finklestien and Dever's ideas, then we have to say that the consensus is that they are correct,

that is just poor logic. the majority isn't always right and because a majority agrees on something does it make it right either. the majority could decide that drunk driving is okay and change the laws but it doesn't make drunk driving a correct behavior pattern.

sometimes you have to listen to the lone voice.

archaeologist wrote:[sometimes you have to listen to the lone voice.

If the lone voice has proof.

archaeologist wrote:

Where did you show this? I don't remember seeing anything except your opinion on Finklestein.

where i have shown this is in the theory i developed and by getting minimalist to declare that finkelstien limits his archaeological excavations to a confined area outside of egypt.

Declare? Finkelstein is proud of his accomplishment in finding the early Israelite settlements at all. He has at least found them, while you prattle on about how wonderful it is that no one has found any record of them in Egypt because in your irrational mind that proves they were there. Such thinking should get you locked up in a padded cell.

Since everyone else on this board accepts or at least doesn't deny Finklestien and Dever's ideas, then we have to say that the consensus is that they are correct,

that is just poor logic. the majority isn't always right and because a majority agrees on something does it make it right either. the majority could decide that drunk driving is okay and change the laws but it doesn't make drunk driving a correct behavior pattern.

sometimes you have to listen to the lone voice.

So now you admit you are hearing voices, huh?

Finkelstein is proud of his accomplishment in finding the early Israelite settlements at all. He has at least found them

so i will give him credit for looking and finding them. doesn't mean that the conclusions he draws from that evidence is correct. he probably found the original towns the Israelites built after the conquest.

while you prattle on about how wonderful it is that no one has found any record of them in Egypt because in your irrational mind that proves they were there.

what proves they were there is the Biblical record, what tries to prove that they weren't there is a non-believing mind. as i said before, you are not always going to get the evidence you want, in the way you want it.

Ridiculous. The bible is proof of nothing. It can't get out of its own way when it comes to proof.

i wonder if we can sustain a conversation on the exodus longer than a couple posts?

At least we agree that Jacobovici is delusional.

At least we agree that Jacobovici is delusional.

yes.

the show was disappointing and so lacking in anything of value, he tried to cover too much ground in too little time.

Arch, the premise was so flawed it wouldn't have mattered how much time he had.

well since we have exhausted the criticisms of jacobovici i guess we could talk about the exodus itself but thatis like having a one way conversation since you deny it ever happened.

you can't rely on finkelstein as he wasn't there to see for himself and he is using limited data in his research and also denies that it ever happened.

But since we have the evidence of the early settlements, it is again safe to say that the exodus is a viable and most logical option for their origin. plus Wood has proven Garstan correct again, so we have the evidence from the conquest period to support that as well.

despite naysayers, who cannot come up with anything substantial in the way of proof for their thinking except denial, contentions as there motive is if they can deny the Bible then they can deny Israel's claims along with dismiss what th Bible says about life and the future.