Archaeologica.org

i just want to mention that in a quick review of books available (some, not many) the ones supporting the exodus all point to the same problem.

that problem being the dating attributed to the evidence discovered. there seems to be plenty of evidence, but it is discounted by those who do not believe scripture.

i am reminded that i came across this problem several years ago when in reading one of charles pellegrino's books (returnn to sodom and gomorrah or searching for atlantis--i don't remember which) . in that book he was discussing thera and the eruption that destroyed the minoans and with other dating techniques he said the exodus and other historical events should be dated much earlier than it is.

he mentioned this to one egyptologist who promptly told him she would kill herself if the dates were changed. seems she had a reputation at stake and death seemed better than making things right.

this is the problem in dealing with archaeology and with those that have no belief. they are not willing to accept the evidence that is there prefering to attribute what they find to whatever alternative suits their fancy.

please don't confuse christianity with islam--they are not the same.

Why not? Both are religions and serve precisely the same function. The product that they "sell" is irrelevant.

that problem being the dating attributed to the evidence discovered. there seems to be plenty of evidence, but it is discounted by those who do not believe scripture.

With good reason, but, take your time. You will find that it is hard to find proof for what is not there.


BTW, the "Thera Eruption" theory was a good one for a time about the demise of Minoan culture until Danish scientists determined from ice cores that the actual date was around 1650 BC. Since Minoan culture continued for roughly another 200 years, Thera could not have been the death blow originally envisioned. Still, it could well have been a mortal wound, just one which took some time to kill off its victim.

It certainly seems plausible to speculate that the damage to Minoan culture from Thera would have provided an opportunity for the Mycaenean Greeks to scramble out from beneath their shadow and start causing trouble in the Late Bronze Age.

With good reason, but, take your time. You will find that it is hard to find proof for what is not there.

like i said, it takes awhile for the books to arrive here. your good reason is that they don't want to prove the Bible true, if they did they would have to acknowledge and deal with the presence of God not only in the ancient world but intheir own modern life. it is easier to omit Him than deal with the reality.

Since Minoan culture continued for roughly another 200 years

even that is iffy, given the track record of most historians and archaeologists.

Better than bible-based-bullshit-artists!

Better than bible-based-bullshit-artists

your prejudice obviously disqualifies you from science, since you are to be objective.

Your reliance on fairy tales disqualifies you from serious consideration for almost anything.

Prove your nonsense, arch. PROOF. If you can't manage that, try to come up with a preponderance of the evidence. If you can't manage that, try to come up with ANY EVIDENCE.

So far, your only answer to any issue is that anyone who doesn't believe your silliness is prejudiced against your stupid bible. Well, guess what?

I AM prejudiced against your stupid bible. So come up with some real evidence because that sorry book of fables contains nothing worth a shit.

Prove your nonsense

i have provided proof plus i have shown where non-religious researchers have come up with the evidence to support the Biblical account and have attributed the finds to something alternative.

yet you dismiss it without even looking fairly or with an open mind at what has been pointed out.

case in point: i posted an author and the pages in his book so one could find all the archaeological discoveries that supported the Bible. what did you do, nothing except to try and discredit the author. (actually i poosted three books but you went after only one).

anytime i post an author, you try to discredit for no reason other than your own favorites disagree with them. you only want discussion that supports your point of view or it is worth nothing. sorry but you are a fraud, you talk a good game but when push comes to shove you want no dissenting opinions from your own.

michelle said in the other forum that 'all opinions are welcome.' so i think you should tone down the trash talk, the disrespect etc., and come to the table with an open mind.

the Bible is the Bible, it does require faith, nos ecret there but evolution requires more faith as all it has is the say so of scientists--wait a minute you said something similar about the Bible, so that statement 'they that cry the loudest are guiltiest most of all' must have some truth to it.

case in point: the fish that supposedly walked on land. how do they know? they don't because they only have half a fossil. wow what damming evidence. a few bones and the say so of a fallible, human scientist.

i think you need to rethink where you put your trust.

A pretty good article on the current state of biblical archaeology and the conservative desperation to 'prove' that it is true.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/20 ... php?page=1

Those in Zertal’s camp say that all, or nearly all, the events in the early books of the Old Testament not only actually happened but are supported by material evidence on the ground. On the other side are the so-called biblical minimalists, who argue that the Old Testament is literary rather than historical—the work of ideologues who wrote it between the fifth and second centuries b.c.—and that Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon never even existed. A third group accepts the Bible as folk memory transmuted into myth—a mixture of fact and fiction. They argue over the balance between the two.

archaeologist wrote:

Prove your nonsense

i have provided proof plus i have shown where non-religious researchers have come up with the evidence to support the Biblical account and have attributed the finds to something alternative.

Your view of 'proof' is the equally unreliable ramblings of other bible thumpers. Find "artifacts." You keep babbling that Finkelstein is biased but he has archaeology on his side whereas all you ever seem to come up with is wishful thinking or hopelessly outdated research. Read the article above. Zertal seems to be thoroughly discredited by other archaeologists but at least he is TRYING. Your idea of proof is to have some other idiot say "I think the bible is true, also."

yet you dismiss it without even looking fairly or with an open mind at what has been pointed out.

The last thing I recall you posting that was even remotely on point was Aharoni's research from the 50's and 60's. We've had this discussion before. Science does not stop because at one point it validated your point of view. Aharoni's own students have surpassed his early work.



case in point: i posted an author and the pages in his book so one could find all the archaeological discoveries that supported the Bible. what did you do, nothing except to try and discredit the author. (actually i poosted three books but you went after only one).

Kindly repost the reference.

anytime i post an author, you try to discredit for no reason other than your own favorites disagree with them. you only want discussion that supports your point of view or it is worth nothing. sorry but you are a fraud, you talk a good game but when push comes to shove you want no dissenting opinions from your own.

Because science has moved beyond you but you cling to the notions that were dug up in 1905 as the final word. That is the piece of archaeology as 'science' that you do not seem to get.

michelle said in the other forum that 'all opinions are welcome.' so i think you should tone down the trash talk, the disrespect etc., and come to the table with an open mind.

You are free to post your opinions....but you bible-thumpers have done enough harm with your nonsense throughout history that you should be able to take a little disrespect. After all, your only consistent theme for belief in the freaking bible is that it is the BIBLE. I want you to clearly understand that such an opinion gets you nowhere with me. The thing is a joke, historically.

the Bible is the Bible, it does require faith, nos ecret there but evolution requires more faith as all it has is the say so of scientists--wait a minute you said something similar about the Bible, so that statement 'they that cry the loudest are guiltiest most of all' must have some truth to it.

This isn't about evolution. This is about a bunch of priests and scribes getting together in the 7th century BC to cobble together an alleged "history" in which when the Jews did what god wanted (meaning, really, what the priests wanted) that theysucceeded and when they didn't they were overrun.) That's a pretty easy trick to manage when you writing after the fact.

case in point: the fish that supposedly walked on land. how do they know? they don't because they only have half a fossil. wow what damming evidence. a few bones and the say so of a fallible, human scientist.

Again, there is an evolution thread but the mere fact that there is a 300 million year old fossil demolishes the bible version.

i think you need to rethink where you put your trust.

I think I have made it abundantly clear what I think of your so-called bible. It's bullshit. But it is bullshit that was written with a human purpose. Has nothing to do with any gods. [/b]

Hot new article following up on arch's mention of the Thera explosion.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... 360665.ece

Using radiocarbon dating, they worked out the year of the tree's death to an accuracy of 13 years each way.

Note that with current refining of radiocarbon technology they have lowered the estimated span to a mere 26 tears. Who says science does not make progress, arch?

A second article on the subject.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe

April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Radiocarbon dating pushes some events in the middle of the second millennium B.C. 100 years back into the past, possibly revising history in the Aegean Sea area near Greece and Turkey, a study in tomorrow's Science said.

``A new story may be written on the origins of early classical and Aegean civilization, which effectively becomes much of Western civilization,'' said Stuart Manning, a Cornell University professor of classics.

Hot new article following up on arch's mention of the Thera explosion.

thanks for posting this article. i like to keep up on what is happening with thera as many of view that it was this explosion that was the pillar of fire at night and the cloud in the day that was mentioned in the Bible during the exodus.

it was this explosion that God used to help create the plagues and which He used to lead the people of israel through the desert before the 40 years of wandering.

The last thing I recall you posting that was even remotely on point was Aharoni's research from the 50's and 60's

aharoni is who i have on hand at the moment, it takes time for books to get to me.

Because science has moved beyond you but you cling to the notions that were dug up in 1905 as the final word. That is the piece of archaeology as 'science' that you do not seem to get.

no i get it but you don't seem to grasp that just because science 'has moved on' does it mean it is right. even in the article you posted, which i enjoyed, it says at the end:

"professor colin renfrew, a cambridge archaeologist, said the studies appeared toprovide convincing evidence to put a firm date on the eruption in thera."

so it is not as if your scientists are actually proving anything, they just arbitrarily declare something and hope people accept it blindly so they feel justified in their work.

....but you bible-thumpers have done enough harm with your nonsense throughout history that you should be able to take a little disrespect. After all, your only consistent theme for belief in the freaking bible is that it is the BIBLE.

the Bible is my starting point and i gather new information where i can find it. but you don't seem to appreciate thatfact that i go into non-religious work and discover the evidence that points towards the Bible. ryan and pittman's book is a prime example. Hapgood is another, Hawkings is another and so on.

the point i have made is that non-religious researchers have come across this evidence but have attributed it to other sources. soi have produced evidence that supports the Bible, no one wants to accept it or think in that way.

This is about a bunch of priests and scribes getting together in the 7th century BC to cobble together an alleged "history

this you have no actual proof for, just hypothesis from a group of men who cannot acept the Bible , so don't you think that their conclusions may be a bit biased and tainted?

I want you to clearly understand that such an opinion gets you nowhere with me. The thing is a joke, historically.

that is a point you have made over and over and i respectfully disagree. since i don't trash talk about your sources, i would appreciate it if yoou would extend the same courtesy.

you do not hear me bashing your source material nor name call and even though you push my patience, i try to limit my responses to the theory itself and not the authors or the posters. except when i called you a liar and a fraud, by the way no apology will be forthcoming as those comments were based upon the responses you made.

there is an evolution thread but the mere fact that there is a 300 million year old fossil demolishes the bible version.

except you can't prove the conclusion you make with a pile of bones. everyone knows that beyond 10,000 years carbon dating is basically useless. the standard c-14 uses, the half-life measure, is basically an unreliable measure as know one really knows if it is a correct constant or not. no one has been alive for 5000 years to accurately record the findings and show that it is true. at best it is a guess and that is something very unstable to place one's faith and hope.

it was this explosion that God used to help create the plagues and which He used to lead the people of israel through the desert before the 40 years of wandering.

Um...the only problem with that theory is that the Nile flows south to north so an explosion a couple of hundred miles NORTH of Egypt is unlikely to have had much of an effect on the sources of the Nile...which are in the Ethiopian highlands. Beyond that obvious fact lies the additional fact that the Hyksos, a Canaanite group was running Egypt around 1600 BC. In fact, Finkelstein makes a pretty convincing case that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Pharoah Ahmose I could account for some of the rumors of Egyptian 'oppression' as the Egyptians followed up their victory and kicked the crap out of the Hyksos all the way back to Canaan. In any case, the Amarna letters make it pretty clear that the Kings of the 18th Dynasty had pretty firm control over Canaan and they make no mention of an Israelites in their correspondence.

Now, since Ahmose's victory was the result of a long process, what this new find may indicate is that the Hyksos did suffer significant decline as a result of the explosion and resultant tidal waves which made it possible for a successul native-Egyptian uprising.

no i get it but you don't seem to grasp that just because science 'has moved on' does it mean it is right.

You remind me of the old observation about teenagers who think that people are born knowing everything and gradually forget it as they grow older. Like I said, if you get sick I want you to demand that the doctors use surgical techniques that were in use in the 1850's because science never makes progress!

"professor colin renfrew, a cambridge archaeologist, said the studies appeared toprovide convincing evidence to put a firm date on the eruption in thera."

so it is not as if your scientists are actually proving anything, they just arbitrarily declare something and hope people accept it blindly so they feel justified in their work.

Okay....he says "the-studies-appeared-to-provide-convincing-evidence-to-put-a-firm-date-on-the-eruption-in-thera."

So exactly where do you get out of that they are not 'proving' anything?

the point i have made is that non-religious researchers have come across this evidence but have attributed it to other sources. soi have produced evidence that supports the Bible, no one wants to accept it or think in that way.

What "evidence?" How come no one else sees any biblical basis to this stuff? Ryan and Pittman's account is of a catastrophic flood in the Black Sea but not one caused by some pissed-off deity who made it rain.
Hapgood wrote some good stuff about maps but mainstream geologists blast his earth-crust displacement theory, not archaeologists! And Steven Hawkings would seem to be the anti-thesis of any bible thumper.

this you have no actual proof for, just hypothesis from a group of men who cannot acept the Bible , so don't you think that their conclusions may be a bit biased and tainted?

You keep saying that but I suggest you read the book. You will find that Finkelstein occupies the middle ground in the dispute. In any case, he has the archaeology on his side whereas you bible thumpers have not got a potsherd to piss in.

except you can't prove the conclusion you make with a pile of bones veryone knows that beyond 10,000 years carbon dating is basically useless.

Jesus H Christ on a crutch! You do understand that a "fossil" is a rock not a bone? They don't date fossils with C-14.

by the way no apology will be forthcoming as those comments were based upon the responses you made.

I think I can live with that.

A pretty good article on the current state of biblical archaeology and the conservative desperation to 'prove' that it is true

is it desparation or another attempt to reject the truth? the article didn't give the impression that the man was on a hunt solely to prove the Bible but that he was doing what any archaeologist does and excavate till he knows the answer.

Ryan and Pittman's account is of a catastrophic flood in the Black Sea but not one caused by some pissed-off deity who made it rain

they limit their study to the Black sea because they are not thinking beyond that area. it is easy to draw the conclusion if you limit the study to one area.

In any case, he has the archaeology on his side whereas you bible thumpers have not got a potsherd to piss in.

he has 'accepted' conclusions on his side but as i was researching for some books to find, i found that many of the books point out the flexibility of the dating method. it is a problem i have mentioned before, how you date, is how you look at the evidence and according to the brief synopsis of the books they allsay that if you move the dating a little, you see how it all correlates with the Bible.

i do not know if the authors are religious or not as i was reading these off of amazon.com. i have ordered a couple of the books to see what they have to say.

You do understand that a "fossil" is a rock not a bone

yes i do and while you are at it while don't you call out the archaeology police and have me arrested. fossils like bones only prove one thing and it isn't very much.

Hapgood wrote some good stuff about maps but mainstream geologists blast his earth-crust displacement theory, not archaeologists! And Steven Hawkings would seem to be the anti-thesis of any bible thumper

maybe so but they are looking and though they may attribute what they find to the wrong source does it mean that i have to do the same. i am reading hapgood's polar shift book now and it is very interesting though i can see where we will disagree. i posted some quotes from the forward of that book and i thought the forward writer did a good job at pointing out how shallow and poor their criticisms were.

though it is easy to see why there was a problem. the geologists were american. (ha)