Archaeologica.org

Sorry Arch but
evidence of nothing = nothing
Puting aside artifacts do you have any references to written texts (apart from the bible) Egyptian or otherwise that directly confirm the exodus ? If so please post links .

You picked up on that a lot quicker than arch ever did.

i ignored it as that is a minor point not worth wasting energy on. i put it down to your personal preference. i am not rresponsible for how yu write your posts.

evidence of nothing = nothing

so since we have no real evidence for your existence (especially after you die) we should assume that you were never alive? i think your parents and friends would take great offense to that notion.

I will take that as a no on other written evidence then.
You are always first to ask for evidence from others I noticed ,
why wont you reciprocate .
Facts , evidence , fossils , artifacts .
If you want to debate or prove a point at least one of the above IS required .

why wont you reciprocate

because you and everyone else rejects any evidence i present so it doesn't matter if i present or not, i lose either way.

read my theory on approx. pg. 80 of current Biblical. arch. and you will get my present position. if i get my paper back from my editor i may post that here as well.

Facts , evidence , fossils , artifacts

when you can prove evolution without using science, fossils and conjecture maybe i will take you up on that.

I have never rejected any evidence (dont count the bible I refuse to go that path ) .If you have a post where I rejected any evidence offered please enlighten me . To the best of my knowledge you have never offered tangible evidence in any reply .

well then you are affected by association then but i do recall your rejection of my answer for 'slavery'. which i gave from the source so you would not accuse me of anything yet you did that as well.

though i should remind you that this is a thread on archaeological categories which is what i aminterested in talking about here. if you want to talk about something else please start a new thread.

Rookie question for you, archy.

Are you actually an archaeologist, as your screen name implies?

they limit their theories to the evidence not the facts.

Mind-boggling lunacy.

Mind-boggling lunacy.

well it may not have written properly. to elaborate a little, physical evidence is just that, a piece of evidence sitting in/on the ground. now what comes with it are two things; one- the actual truth and two-- the interpretation of the person writing about it.

so we may never hear the truth because the archaeologist has limited his data to a certain area and exclude facts from other sources which would lend light to finding the actual truth.

facts are those items which are not always found in the limited area of study but also in the omitted pieces of data ignored for whatever reason or belief. thus limiting oneself to only the physical area of evidence in a contained field of research means they are ignoring facts that would bring out the truth.

for example: finkelstein states that the israelites did not sojourn in egypt, did not participate in the exodus or the conquest of canaan . the only thing he agrees to basically is the settlement. this based solely on the physical evidence remnantsa he has uncovered.

he fails to recognize that the it was virtually impossible for the israleites to produce any cultural identity and products to cast off as physical evidence to be found till that time when they became stable and settled enough to start industry and actually produce the aforementioned cultural products.

this failure to accept the facts and to solely rely on limited physical evidence leads him to and then promote a false conclusion.

archaeologist wrote:

Mind-boggling lunacy.

he fails to recognize that the it was virtually impossible for the israleites to produce any cultural identity and products to cast off as physical evidence to be found till that time when they became stable and settled enough to start industry and actually produce the aforementioned cultural products.

this failure to accept the facts and to solely rely on limited physical evidence leads him to and then promote a false conclusion.

I can't buy this. Your conclusion would be that these thousands of people wandered the desert for years with just the clothes on their backs? Theyd be dead within weeks (which would produce archaeological evicence!). Besides material culture, where are the cooking fires? Archaeologists have found evidence of small campfires of 2-3 guys from thousands of years ago. I found one myself in Florida that was 600 years old at least. You can't pretend that a migration of this magnitude would leave behind no physical evidence.

You'd be surprised what Arch can pretend.

I can't buy this

then don't. i can't buy the story you found a 600 year old campfire. please produce the skeletons to prove it.

that is an example of what i face, the type of evidence i am asked for yet the inquirers always in their haste to prove me wrong, leave out other contributing factors which lead them down the wrong road to disbelief.here is an example. K.A.Kitchen wrote in his book, 'The Bible In Its World' on pg.10:

"At periods when a town-site was deserted, driving wind, sand and rains would often erode away the uppermost levels of the abandoned houses and walls. Thus, at Ur, the town of Neo-Babylonian times was largely swept away(attested mainly by burials), while 20 feet depth of human occupation-remains had been lost from ancient Babylonian Eshnunna (tel Asmar) before it was excavated. Likewise, in barely 150 years (c.1550-1400 bc) most of the middle bronze age town of Jericho and its defense walls (with 20 feet of scarp below them) were similarly eroded away. Small wonder, then, that from the still higher late bronze age levels (joshua's time), scarcely any traces have survived the 400 years of scouring and denudation that followed their destruction."

so if cities were not immune to mitigating factors such as this, how would campfires and other less stable remnants fair in the open desert? until you learn to honestly factor in these circumstances for all situations (whether biblical or not) yu won't get your answers because you will reject what you hear since you look for proof that may not be there any more.

archaeologist wrote:

I can't buy this

then don't. i can't buy the story you found a 600 year old campfire. please produce the skeletons to prove it.

uh - I said campfire - not skeletons. There is a difference. And you don't get to take the skeletons or any other artifacts home with you if you find them. An archaeologist would kinda know that.

And for the record I don't appreciate being called a liar. I was digging with the Kissimme Valley Archaeological Society at Blueberry, a Belle Glade Culture site, in Florida January 12 2005. My birthday in fact.

I have asked several times if you are an archaeologist. I don't need to ask anymore - I have my answer.

[The Bible in its World, 1977, .

Again, Arch.....you hang your hat on outdated opinions written before the surveys which demolished any pretense of accuracy in your book of holy (or is that Whole-y) fables?

Do you do that because modern archaeological research is so threatening to your shaky belief system?

uh - I said campfire - not skeletons

i know that, i was just returning an unrealistic request for an unrealistic request.

An archaeologist would kinda know that.

and i have my answer about you.

And for the record I don't appreciate being called a liar. I was digging with the Kissimme Valley Archaeological Society at Blueberry, a Belle Glade Culture site, in Florida January 12 2005. My birthday in fact

so you are touchy too about being disagreed with. i am sure those scholars you call into question don't appreciate an upstart like you disagreeing with them.

have asked several times if you are an archaeologist. I don't need to ask anymore - I have my answer.

actually you don't. i did notice how you completely ignored the textual proof i presented to back up my point, buti am used to that.

you hang your hat on outdated opinions written before the surveys which demolished any pretense of accuracy in your book of holy

links to back that up please. i have not heard that Kitchen has withdrawn that assessment nor have i heard anyone prove him wrong yet. you bring these statements out everytimne i prove my point and you fail to prove what you say.

30 years won't change the fact except to allow more erosion of sites.