Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

BUt your bible has NO dating process and cannot be reconciled with the rest of world history at the time. It is full of anachronisms because it was written by people who assumed that the world as they knew it had existed in exactly that way forever.

Other nations had histories, too, and the biblical claims for the Israelites simply do not fit in. There is no getting around that simple fact.

[Minimalist]

As an example of Finkelstein's method (and I know you don't care but there are other people here who are open-minded) note the following:

Jerusalem has been excavated time and again-and with a particularly intense period of investigation of Bronze and Iron Age remains in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh, of the Hebrew University, at the city of David, the original urban core of Jerusalem. Surprisingly, as Tel Aviv University archaeologist David Ussishkin pointed out, fieldwork there and in other parts of biblical Jerusalem failed to provide significant evidence for a tenth century occupation. Not only was any sign of monumental architecture missing, but so were even simple pottery sherds. The types that are so characteristic of the tenth century at other sites are rare in Jerusalem. Some scholars have argued that later, massive building activities in Jerusalem wiped out all signs of the earlier city. Yet excavations in the city of David revealed impressive finds from the Middle Bronze Age and from later centuries of the Iron Age-just not from the tenth century BC. The most optimistic assessment of this negative evidence is that tenth century Jerusalem was rather limited in extent, perhaps not more than a typical hill country village.

This modest appraisal meshes well with the rather meager settlement pattern of the rest of Judah in the same period, which was composed of only about twenty small villages and a few thousand inhabitants, many of them wandering pastoralists. In fact, it is highly unlikely that this sparsely inhabited region of Judah and the small village of Jerusalem could have become the center of a great empire stretching from the Red Sea in the south to Syria in the north. Could even the most charismatic king have marshaled the men and arms needed to acheive and hold such vast territorial conquests? There is absolutely no archaeological inidcation of the wealth, manpower, and level of organization that would be required to support large armies-even for brief periods-in the field. Even if the relatively few inhabitants of Judah were able to mount swift attacks on neighboring regions, how would they have possibly been able to administer the vast and even more ambitious empire of David's son Solomon?

So, there you have archaeological research stretching over at least 30 years, involving different scholars and universities (and Finkelstein would have been a school boy when Shiloh was doing his digging!). Were they all in on some grand Jewish scheme to discredit their own history just to make idiot christian fundamentalists look bad?

Just for reference, here is what you claim this shitty little village conquered and controlled.



So, ultimately one of your points is correct. If all you come up with is some bible-thumping jackass shouting "THE BIBLE SAYS....THE BIBLE SAYS..." then you are right, I am going to blast the ever-loving shit out of such mindless stupidity.

Find someone who disputes Shiloh and Ussishkin and has "evidence" to back their claims. I am confident that such evidence does not exist or Ussishkin and Finkelstein would have discussed it. Scholars hate to look bad....unlike bible thumpers who don't seem to give a rat's ass how dumb they look.

[Guest]

Not only was any sign of monumental architecture missing, but so were even simple pottery sherds

agian, conclusion by what is not found. who says in the tenth century they even built or lived inthat sectionof the city? maybe they lived in pre-existing buildings, i don't know but the process of thought seems very limited as it looks for a narrow avenue to give the answer when there are many other reasons that come into play.

when it comes down to it, i stick with the Bible and do not care what finkelstein says. there are many mitgating factors which you do not take into account nor give credence to thus it is difficult to have any discussion because you won't recognize nor understand their influence.

you have to remember that God is not going to have so many archaeological discoveries made, if faith is going to be destroyed. faith is important to God and it is a criteria in pleasing Him and no matter what your experts do, it won't change that fact.

[Minimalist]

maybe they lived in pre-existing buildings

Maybe they lived in pyramids in Bosnia?


They have made their conclusion on the basis of generations of research which has found jack-shit to back up the ludicrous claims of bible-thumpers. It is now up to you to get off your ass and find some proof to back up your stories.

I know you will stick to the bible.....it's easier than thinking.l


In addition to being a lousy geographer and lousy historian your so-called god is also a lousy archaeologist.

Give it up, arch. You believe it because you believe it....not because any of it ever happened.

It's a historical novel gone wild.

[Guest]

I know you will stick to the bible.....it's easier than thinking

i think, as the Bible allows us to.

You believe it because you believe it....not because any of it ever happened

i believe it because it is true, and because it did happen. will have a quote later for you, in which you can try to dis-credit.

[Minimalist]

From whom....Billy Graham or some such other genius?


You know, on the recent Gospel of Judas special, they had a brief interview with a bible thumper named Robert Schuller....you're probably on his christmas card list....

Anyway, this genius said, as near as I can recall....

" I have Matthew, Mark, Luke and JOhn.....WHY would I need anything else?"

Heaven forbid that you might LEARN something Schuller!

I figure you must have his picture on your wall.

[Minimalist]

Oh, BTW, I'm not going to let you slip this nonsense in, without comment.

i believe it because it is true, and because it did happen. will have a quote later for you, in which you can try to dis-credit.

You believe it because you believe it....you have no proof that it is true or that any of it ever happened. As a matter of fact, you can thank Finkelstein for establishing whatever historical merit the bible might have left....although it only begins to get its facts right on occasion with the Omride dynasty.

While you are scrounging around looking for a 'quote' (I notice you didn't say "Evidence") I though you might enjoy this chart which shows the Iron Age settlements in the Highlands. Draw a horizontal line between Bethel and Jerusalem (pretty much in the middle) and you will more or less have the division between northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms. Note that each dot represents a village. Note also how much more densely populated was the north versus the south.

[Guest]

"Despite lofty pronouncements from scholarly circles, archaeology and egyptology are really all about opinions. These disciplines atually shun ancient writtensources as unreliable and too subjective. These same scholars will maintain that they offer the only objective view since their cnclusion are based on hard evidence..."

Reporter Itamer Singer ( amd i hesitate to use the name but..)

"If this were the case, there would be no bitter arguments among archaeologists over their interpretations of various findings. True, the silent remians do not lie but the archaeologists who speak in their name are no less subjective thanthe philologists who interpret the texts. Archaeology does not have the role of "supreme arbiter in the polemic on Bible history, ut is rather an active participant in the debate."'


again we see that archaeologists are as fallible as scientists and the fact stands that even a number of archaeologists do not make the history right, just acceptable in their eyes because they have no interest in proving the Bible true.

in their minds, it is not in their best intersts to use the data discovered in a manner that is remotely close to supporting the Bible. if they did then they would have to deal with all that the Bible says, even the judgment o come and that is something they care not think about.

*quotes taken from "the riddle of the exodus' by James Long

[tj]

in their minds, it is not in their best intersts to use the data discovered in a manner that is remotely close to supporting the Bible. if they did then they would have to deal with all that the Bible says, even the judgment o come and that is something they care not think about.

This is the second time I've seen you put forth the idea that evidence of the mundane is somehow proof of the grandiose and I'd like to comment on the (broken) reasoning therein.

Since it would seem that Troy has been discovered, and that it was the site of a war, do you actually believe that Odysseus escaped the cyclops by claiming he was 'no man'? Do you believe that anybody does believe that? Is any person that accepts the discovery of Troy bound by logic or the dictates of reason to believe the extraordinary portions of Homer's writing?

If it doesn't work that way with the Illiad and the Odyssey, then why would it work that way with the Bible or any other literature?

[Minimalist]

Again, arch, an opinion but no "Evidence" to support the ridiculous tales put forward in your precious bible.

There is a good reason why ancient written texts have to be taken with a grain of salt....people exaggerate...sometimes they flat out lie. Hell, they do that in the modern world. too.

It wasn't so long ago that every US government official swore that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to fire in 45 minutes. Oops. That turned out to be a lie, too.

So when some jackoff writes that there was a vast and glorious empire and it turns out that what there really was was a shitty little village with later delusions of glory I have to go with what the artifacts show not with what the writers say.

As for scholars disagreeing, yes, that is how progress is made. They argue and debate and eventually come to a consensus based on the evidence. That is precisely the process used to establish the origin of Israel in the late 13th century BC, indigenously in Israel. No reasonable agreement can ever come from holy joes throwing up their hands and shouting "Hallelujah....the bible says." All that's good for is sucking money out of people like you.

[Guest]

Again, arch, an opinion but no "Evidence" to support the ridiculous tales put forward in your precious bible.

just some quotes then, taken from "the riddleof the Exodus' by james d. long. keep in mind most of these are quotes of quotes and not all of them are long's words.

"...kathleen kenyon...she believed that the ruins at jericho could not be dated to correspond with Israel's entry into the land. However, her thesis was faulty from the beginning, Kenyon's proposed date of this event was pure conjecture and her conclusions were based not on what she found--but what she did not find at jericho." pg. 11 & 12

""John Anthon West, a controversial figure in Egyptology, provides some insight into the official view of the field he describes as, '...in a state of constant ferment and revision, though the outsider would never suspect it."

"Yet a tattered document from the final days of the 6th Dynasty known as 'The Admonitions if an Egyptian Sage' challenges the view that the Egyptians kept no record of the exodus and its profound impact" pg. 14

"In nis introduction to his 'Pyramids of Egypt', author I.E.S. Edwards spills the beans, "...In the case of Egyptian monuments it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible to answer the question interms of years before the beginning of the Christian Era, because our knowledge of Egyptian chronology is still very incomplete." pg. 19

"...It is an amalgam drawn partly from a record set down by manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived in the 3rd century BCE. But his work only survives through second-hand sources." pg. 21

"As sir alan gardiner noted," in spite of all the defects this division into dynasties has taken so firm a root in the literature of Egyptology that there is little chance of it ever being abandoned." pg. 21

"However, the Egyptian Chronology contains a serious defect that is rarely acknowledged-- nor has it been corrected, No one can agree at what point in time the chronology begins. Since the chronology has been introduced it has been revised over 20 times." pg 22

"When it comes to Egyptian history, take whatever information you may be given with a pinch of ssalt and keep an open mind to conflicts of opinion. Beyond a reasonable certainty of the succession of the kings, very little that passes for Egyptian history is fact." pg 27

these are just a few interesting tidbits i came across and they provide good food for thought. yet these quotes do back up my words so i am not the only one who thinks like this.

so finkelstein may have 60 archaeologists on his side but are they using corrupted sources, more than possible as they make up a lot of the close-minded mainstream of archaeology.

[Minimalist]

Thee best scholarly discussion of the Ipuwer papyrus that I've seen makes the case that it describes Egypt at a time of invasion at the end of the Old Kingdom, after the 6th Dynasty. No Israelites, no Hebrews, no people leaving just an invasion of people coming in which tore the country apart and ushered in several centuries of decline. It predates the Hyksos by quite some time. It is also available only in a copy of a copy of a copy and is in lousy condition.

One has to be a desperate bible-thumper, as I know you are, to read into it anything relative to your Exodus, especially since it does nothing to answer the charge that Israel only arose at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Remember what you are up against. Real scholars doing real archaeological research and who have found real evidence of when and where the Israelites (or proto-Israelites as Dever insists on calling them.)

Keep trying.

[Guest]

Remember what you are up against

i am up against close-minded people who refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong.

discussion of the Ipuwer papyrus

don't remember mentioning that papyrus unles hat is the 'sage' document. but still scholars are known to be wrong and it is easy to place an arbitrary date on an item and have people believe it.

Real scholars doing real archaeological research

this 'cover my ears, eyes...' defense is old as these so-called real archaeologists are afraid to admit that they may be wrong and ruin a lifetime of work. better to admit being wrong and change than to die being wrong.

i find that those 'real' archaeologists work from disbelief which means their interpretations, their observations and conclusions are already pre-judged or influenced.

[Minimalist]

One has to work from 'disbelief' where the bible is concerned. These are scientists....not writers of fairy tales.

i am up against close-minded people who refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong.

You fit right in....except they have dug up the evidence and you cling to childhood fantasies.

don't remember mentioning that papyrus unles hat is the 'sage' document. but still scholars are known to be wrong and it is easy to place an arbitrary date on an item and have people believe it.

Yeah, that's what it is. It's been known forever....in fact, if I recall someone found it before Champollion even deciphered hieroglyphics.

As for the arbitrary assigning of dates....that would apply even more so to desperate people, who oh so want the bible to be true.....but it isn't.

[Guest]

One has to work from 'disbelief' where the bible is concerned. These are scientists....not writers of fairy tales

hahaha---that is a good one.

You fit right in....except they have dug up the evidence and you cling to childhood fantasies

hahaha--another good one.

As for the arbitrary assigning of dates....that would apply even more so to desperate people, who oh so want the bible to be true.....but it isn't.

hahaha--you are quite the funny man there.

it is not that i want it to be true rather that it is true. problem is all these so-called experts who make claims to the contrary and you swallow them hook,line and sinker.

oh one other thing---- one reason why i don't put a lot of quotes and evidence on here is that you will find some escape route allowing you to feel good about what you believe and avoid thinking about the reality of what has really taken place.
if you move the dates back a bit, you will find that all the evidence actually fits the Bible account but you are not brave enough to contemplate such a thing and realize how wrong you and your buddies are.