Page 3 of 24
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:43 am
by Minimalist
Following the scholarly tradition of converting the 480-year period into twelve generations of twenty-five years each, or 300 years, and adding those 300 years to the biblical date for Solomon’s fourth year, gives and Exodus date of 1317 B.C.
All of this mental masturbation when the simple answer is that it never happened at all.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:35 pm
by Leona Conner
Well we finally got our phone lines fixed after the big storm, five days NO PHONE -- NO INTERNET, just slightly crazy.
Yes, I did watch the show. Sorry Arch but I couldn't stay awake. Taped it and still dozed off, shows you just how much a thought of it. Of course, I always try to keep an open mind and not make any decisions, but some of it was just pure crap. The only part that I really paid any attention to was comparing the Hebrews to the Hyksos. Funny how he tried to make it sound like it was a completely new idea he came up with, when it was first brought up back in the 1920-30s. Then again by Immanuel Velikovsky in "Ages In Chaos" in 1952. I'm not saying that I completely believe what I.V. says but he is thought provoking and some of his ideas and conclusions make sense.
To any one of you: one thing I would like to know; what was the difference between the Israelites and the Hebrews in those days? Were they one and the same group of people or were they two distinct groups? Just some of the things I've been reading lead me to think that they were two different groups. The Israelites were in Egypt while the Hebrews were in Palestine. S.A.B.Mercer said "All Israelites were Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were Israelites." (????)
I agree that the eruption of Thera could not have caused the ten plagues. But a tsunami could have caused what came to be know as the parting of the Red Sea. They have been known to travel quite a distance, especially if the cause is massive. There have been several TV shows showing how that could have happend.
Anyway, it was a well filmed show, even if the content lacked the same thought.
---------------------------------------
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
-Albert Einstein
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:01 pm
by Guest
All of this mental masturbation when the simple answer is that it never happened at all
nice discussion killer--- so you are saying that you won't participate becuase people disagree with you?
But a tsunami could have caused what came to be know as the parting of the Red Sea. They have been known to travel quite a distance, especially if the cause is massive.
we are not questioning the tsunami's ability to travel or anything else, we are more or less questioning the timing of it all.
at one point jacobovich claims that earthquakes started oil fires. how does it get limited to just one? what would be the spark to ignite the flame?
Anyway, it was a well filmed show, even if the content lacked the same thought.
i could have done without all the computer graphics.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:11 pm
by Guest
i think it can be said that jacobovich did not do a good job in his research or showing how he came to his conclusions but the real point i want to diuscuss which touches on a very sensitive issue and explains why there is so little evidence to support the exodus and sojourn.
At one point jacobovich mentions the E.A.A representative closely watching over the archaeologist and his work. He makes the statement, which i will paraphrase:
'discovery of evidence for the exodus thought to strengthen the Israeli claims...'
this is the crux of the issue in the middle east as the muslims, palestineans and all enemies of israel do not want others to find anything that supports the Biblical accounts for then they lose out on the land they so desparately want to keep.
this is not a new thought as i have run into it before in my readings and it mmakes sense of all the problems archaeologists run into. (getting visas, permits and so on).
this is one reason why i can reject dever and finkelstein and know that they are wrong because they are not getting all the information they need to make the proper determination.
there is no reason why egypt or other nations would help those who would inevitably be helping their enemy and explains why we cannot find any evidence of the israelites in egypt or on the exodus.
being a politically sensitive issue, it stands to reason why we are left to use faith and not definitive proof.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:12 pm
by Minimalist
Quote:
All of this mental masturbation when the simple answer is that it never happened at all
nice discussion killer--- so you are saying that you won't participate becuase people disagree with you?
Oh, stop it. These bible fanatics claim that the damn thing is the unerring word of god....right up until it is shown to be bullshit. Then, all of a sudden, it is okay to start tinkering with the 'unerring word of god' to get it to work.
Stand up for your beliefs! Either it is or it isn't. You make your silly god look like a complete horse's ass by trying to redefine the text to make it fit.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:23 pm
by Minimalist
[quote="archaeologist"]i think it can be said that jacobovich did not do a good job in his research or showing how he came to his conclusions but the real point i want to diuscuss which touches on a very sensitive issue and explains why there is so little evidence to support the exodus and sojourn.
At one point jacobovich mentions the E.A.A representative closely watching over the archaeologist and his work. He makes the statement, which i will paraphrase:
'discovery of evidence for the exodus thought to strengthen the Israeli claims...'
First off, Jacobovici is an Israeli, even though he now lives in Canada, so the thought that Egyptian authorities might be suspicious is hardly out of line. For the other side of the coin, check out the post I made where Jewish claims of anti-semitism were brought to bear on a scientific study that shows that the Jews and Palestinians are genetically indistringuishable. Secondly, if they dug up a deed transferring Palestine from the Byzantines to Mohammad, do you think the Israelis would say:
"okay...you're right. We'll leave?" NOnsense.
this is the crux of the issue in the middle east as the muslims, palestineans and all enemies of israel do not want others to find anything that supports the Biblical accounts for then they lose out on the land they so desparately want to keep.
See above. It's a meaningless argument.
this is not a new thought as i have run into it before in my readings and it mmakes sense of all the problems archaeologists run into. (getting visas, permits and so on).
You'll need more than anecdotal evidence to sustain that claim.
this is one reason why i can reject dever and finkelstein and know that they are wrong because they are not getting all the information they need to make the proper determination.
Horseshit. Finkelstein is Israeli and his work is done within Israel and the West Bank. You are just grasping at straws. There are Western archaeologists all over Egypt and have been since Napoleon. In all that time they have found exactly NOTHING to support the biblical lies contained in Exodus. Deal with it.
there is no reason why egypt or other nations would help those who would inevitably be helping their enemy and explains why we cannot find any evidence of the israelites in egypt or on the exodus.
Grasping at straws again. They were digging in Egypt for 150 years before there was a state of Israel. Give it up. It's bullshit.
being a politically sensitive issue, it stands to reason why we are left to use faith and not definitive proof.
Faith is a very poor substitute for proof. In fact, it is not substitute at all.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:27 pm
by Harte
Minimalist wrote:I don't know who else watched it except the dear, departed, marduk.
Minimalist,
I watched the idiotic thing, unfortunately.
Marduk is gone? What happened there?
Harte
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:34 pm
by Minimalist
Harte,
Chalk it up as a lesson that sometimes you must check in on the other side to find out what they are up to.
He got banned.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:34 pm
by Guest
Finkelstein is Israeli and his work is done within Israel and the West Bank.
proves my point.
Grasping at straws again
no i think it is vital to the issue and affects the dig sites which get approval for operation.
Faith is a very poor substitute for proof
depends on your perspective
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:38 pm
by Minimalist
archaeologist wrote:Finkelstein is Israeli and his work is done within Israel and the West Bank.
proves my point.
Proves nothing except that you don't understand that Finkelstein's determination of indigenous origins for the Israelites was based on work done IN PALESTINE. There are plenty of others digging in Egypt. Had they found evidence of Israelites in Egypt, Finkelstein would have to amend his theory, wouldn't he?
But they haven't.
Grasping at straws again
no i think it is vital to the issue and affects the dig sites which get approval for operation.
I repeat. The Israelis are not going to leave based on archaeological findings. The whole thing is a pointless exercise.
Faith is a very poor substitute for proof
depends on your perspective
Absolutely. For non-scientific bible-thumpers I would expect nothing more.....and, of course, they deserve little serious consideration as a result.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:16 pm
by Guest
Proves nothing except that you don't understand that Finkelstein's determination of indigenous origins for the Israelites was based on work done IN PALESTINE
right, research based upon limited excavation, limited evidence and based solely upon his beliefs and interpretation along with the rejection of other people's interpretation of the same evidence.
your sole rejection of people like hoffmeier, kitchen and others is because they are bible based which is not a valid reason for rejecting their work, opinions or interpretation.
frank and others love to call me arrogant, etdc., when i am not being arrogant or whatever. yet they find no wrong in criticizing contrary views using worse criteria than you.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:21 pm
by Minimalist
Would you have Finkelstein go looking for them in Peru? He found their earliest towns on the West Bank. Modern archaeology accepts his findings as conclusive. Only bible-thumping morons (look in a mirror) try to deny the obvious.
The ball is in your court to find real evidence that Finkelstein is wrong. The last attempt was your pal Jacobovici and even you think he's nuts.
Come up with something to support your case or throw in the towel and give up on the silliness of the OT.
Then we can move on to demolishing the NT.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:25 pm
by Minimalist
My rejection of your bible-thumping pals is that they try to prove the bible by quoting the bible.
Let's see some PROOF...not more fairy tales.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:30 pm
by Guest
Modern archaeology accepts his findings as conclusive
that is a misleading statement, even his own professors has taken finkelstein to task and i posted such an example.
The last attempt was your pal Jacobovici and even you think he's nuts.
don't lump me in with him. why would he be my pal? yes, i think he is off, based upon his conclusions and research not for some unrealistic reason.
it is not in my court as i have already presented a theory that explains the situation yet you dismiss it without investigation because you only want to hear one thing, your point of view.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:38 pm
by Minimalist
You presented a "theory" with zero evidence to be evaluated.
In my book that is a wild-ass guess...not a theory.
I could present a theory that George W. Bush is an escapee from a mental institution which would have just as much "evidence" as your theory.