Current Biblical Archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:11 pm

The book was cited as a companion piece by Amazon and is called the Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb.

we are not talking about whitcomb and morris. it is rehwinkel's book that i offered up not the others. i have doubts about whitcomb and morris thus i never reccommended them, try to stay on topic and stop deviating from the point.

What I find interesting is that you make the same silly comments about C14 dating, doubtlessly relying on books from the dim recesses of scientific history

no, mainly from my archaeology professors who have been in archaeology a lot longer than i.

What kind of bible-thumping shithead does one have to be not to understand that it TAKES MILLIONS OF YEARS for fossils to form

that is an assumption or a theory as no one can prove it true. there is no possible way to prove it true.

Keep your fucking bible in church where it belongs and out of public education.

i would suggest that you keep your lies out of public education as evolution and all that goes with it, is unproveable , untenable and just out and out ridiculous. why? because it takes conjecture to fill in the blanks not fact.

not one chart showing the tree of evolution is drawn from actuall evidence, but what the researchers think is possible yet it ignores all modern evidence to the contrary.

the evidence is there, no one outside of the religious world wants to accept it for it means throwing away one's life work and scientists are just too stubborn to look for the truth.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:22 pm

So you want to teach science students that man was formed by some god from dirt and women were made from his rib?

Yeah, that will go a long way towards improving science education.

Face it, arch, the bible is bullshit. Always has been, always will be.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:52 pm

i am tired of your one note mantra--- you have your choice and it seems you have made it. i have mine and i have made it. leave the rhetoric in 6th grade class and start acting like an adult.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:28 am

Yep. Typical response.

When there is no answer you hide behind your magic.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:42 pm

When there is no answer you hide behind your magic

it is not that i have no answer, it is the fact i am tired of your inabilty to discuss like a human being.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:55 pm

Discuss like a hunman being would be nice....but I can't talk about magic snakes and poison apples (oh, wait, that was Snow White...an easy mistake to make!) and the sun standing still and mass murder of anyone who happens to get in the way of god's holy army.

Must be tough to keep telling yourself you believe all that shit, eh?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:13 am

Must be tough to keep telling yourself you believe all that shit, eh?

not at all. archaeology helps support that belief.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:07 am

Then post some of that archaeology.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:16 pm

i have, you must have been sleeping wheni did it.

just because you reject the sources does it mean the evidenceis wrong. it just means you are close-minded to anything except what you have pre-approved.

evidence doesn't come in the neat little packages you want it to.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:22 pm

No. You post opinions by non-archaeologists, with the exception of Aharoni whose own students took his methods and disproved his theories.

But two can play that game.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/3front94.htm

Another consequence of the argument that Dobbs and his fundamentalist cohorts would never accept is that, carried to its logic end, the argument will prove that Jesus was a counterfeit. This conclusion necessarily follows from the fact that belief in virgin-born, miracle-working, crucified, and resurrected saviors flourished long before Jesus of
Nazareth allegedly lived. So if such savior-gods were worshiped prior to the time Jesus of Nazareth came onto the religious scene, then Jesus must
have been a counterfeit of those who had preceded him. If not, why
not?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:51 pm

then
proceeded to parrot the trite old argument that says the existence of a
counterfeit proves the existence of the real thing.

i can disagree with this argument, not so much because i agree with a non-christian but because it makes little sense.

i do not mind sources coming from outside the archaeological world, solely for the purpose that archaeologists, like scientists, get stuck on some theory and refuse to acknowledge any change.

i guess the gang of egyptologists provide enough evidence for that assertion.

You post opinions by non-archaeologists, with the exception of Aharoni whose own students took his methods and disproved his theories

that is your belief. i haven't finished reading aharoni yet so i can't say. but you are assuming that those students mad no errors in thier thinking or strayed from their data. again, the dating system plays a large role in this and it is a very arbtrary system since no pottery comes with a stamp 'made in the 12th century b.c.' so your experts can be (and are) in error because of mitigating factors influencing the conclusions.

bias plays a large role in archaeologist's asessments. you also have to take into acocunt that my time is limited for these sites. i work thus any research takes time i do not have. i do not have the luxury of being retired for many more years yet.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:40 am

i willpost a link for you that lists some Biblical discoveriesthat should twek any interest.http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm

Ten major archeological discoveries of the past century that are significant for understanding the world of the Bible are identified. For each find, a narrative of its discovery and the crucial information it unlocks is relayed, plus its connection to key biblical events or references. These ten discoveries illustrate the point that new facts about the Bible, its world and personalities, come through diligence in archeological research

also note the credentials of the author.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:50 am

Fine, 9 of these are well established archaeological finds and from a quick read the author makes no outlandish claims about them. The 10th, the Mount Erbil 'altar' is not accepted by anyone except the guy who found it.

As The Terminator said, "I'll be back" when a have a few more moments to expand on this.

Congratulations for FINALLY posting something that is archaeologically relevant to the discussion.

(You have gone ahead of Jean Marie with two archaeologically relevant submissions.)

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:24 am

Congratulations, Arch.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:44 pm

You have gone ahead of Jean Marie with two archaeologically relevant submissions

i think i have long surpassed jean marie with all the things i have posted.

Congratulations, Arch

for what? i have long said there is proof, i just happen to come across it in non-traditional places. which by the way, is subject to people's ability to accept said proof or their ability to interpret correctly, just because an interpretation is accepted generally does it mean it is really true. in the majority of times that may be so but not all of the time and again acceptanceis not done on a truely objective and non-biased scale.

for example,the annals of nebuchadnezzar:

"year 7, november-- in his seventh year, 598 bce, neb. puts down a revolt by Jehoiakim, kingof judah. The books of samuel-kings date the invasion in the eighth year of his reign. Jehoiakim died during the seige of jerusalem and was succeeded by his son jehoiachin. neb. took jehoiachin andhis household back to babylon as hostages, and apponted mattaniah as king of juday. mattaniah took the throne name 'zedekiah'.

(now from the annals) Neb., the king of akkad, marched his army into hatti. he laid seige to the city of judah. He captured the city on the second day of feb. he appointed a new king to his liking and carried away a great amount of plunder from judah to babylon." pg 184 O.T. Parallels by victor h. matthews & don c. benjamin

so the reliability of this passage depends upon the those who accept it or not. if there is enough people to reject it then no credibility will be attached even though true.