Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

Contemporary?


14 centuries after the fact cannot be construed as contemporary.


Most of the bible is just made up shit. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can scrape up the little bit which may reflect some actual history of the area.

[Guest]

Most of the bible is just made up shit. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can scrape up the little bit which may reflect some actual history of the area.

you really have a problem. having a belief and a biblical view is not wrong and if you would take the time to notice i find these pieces of evidence in non-religious books.

just because you want to stumble around in the dark does it mean that i have to.

josephus was earlier than 14 centuries, get your facts straight.

[Minimalist]

But the patriarchs were around 2,000 BC and the bible was written in 640 which is about 14 centuries by my counting.

Strictly made up bullshit.

[Minimalist]

BTW, even though I can't stand soccer, I thought I'd honor the current World Cup.

[Guest]

But the patriarchs were around 2,000 BC and the bible was written in 640 which is about 14 centuries by my counting

dates offered by those who do not believe and have no interest in agreeing with the Bible. how gullible you are.

i could go on andon and on but wat is the point? you do not acept anything, you try to bully everyone into your way of thinking. by stating you want everything scientific, you have closed your mind and are worse than i or other believers you accuse.

at best minamalist, you are a hypocrite, nothing more maybe less. your cries for evidence blinds your eyes to what evidence there is, your cries for science limits you to what evidence there is, which you will not accept unless it comes from your accepted lists.

we have gone on for almost 40 pages and not once have you even entertained anything proof i have posted. you have always found some excuse to dismiss it. actually you are worse than a hypocrite because you hide behind the mantra of 'it has to be science'. a neat trickto avoid dealing with the reality and with the proof that makes you andyour writers wrong.

[Minimalist]

The only 'proof' you offered of an archaeological basis was that list of ten finds of the 20th century....of which the six that were relevant supported Finkelstein's opinions; some early theory of Aharoni's which has been blown out of the water by recent work of his own students....including Finkelstein; and Amihai Mazar....who differs with Finkelstein by about 50 years...not 1,400.

You have yet to produce a single piece of archaeological evidence which supports the patriarchs, the captivity, the exodus or the conquest. Putting out the holy opinions of hucksters like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson proves exactly squat! You may be willing to give those phonies some credence but as far as I am concerned they are nothing but wildly successful con men because of gullible fools like you.

[Guest]

The only 'proof' you offered of an archaeological basis was that list of ten finds of the 20th century

that was not the only evidence i produced. you just make it seem that way.

You have yet to produce a single piece of archaeological evidence which supports the patriarchs, the captivity, the exodus or the conquest

again, the fault of lack of evidence for the exodus falls on those who arbitrarily date the destruction that has been found. such destruction, dated honestly, proves the biblical account.

then we have egyptian records which state the plagues in order and with the same result. i have produced many piecesof evidence, it is just that you wish to follow that which you want to hear,not that which is true.

finkelstein and dever may think they have disproved aharoni as they seek to discredit the Bible and to place false dates upon those discoveries made. remember archaeology is more subjective than objective thus finkelstein and dever among others, take advantage of that fact and direct their work accordingly.

[Minimalist]

again, the fault of lack of evidence for the exodus falls on those who arbitrarily date the destruction that has been found. such destruction, dated honestly, proves the biblical account.

Ah, so if you arbitrarily date evidence which does not exist that would be okay because that would be supporting your fairy tales. Don't you see how foolish your argument seems to rational people?

You can personalize your disagreement with Finkelstein and Dever all you like but they are merely the front men for regiments of archaeologists who are uncovering the past and finding out that the bible should have been left to the "faithful" because it has nothing to say to 'historians.'

[Guest]

now to lay finkelstein and dever to rest.

since you hold them up as the standard for all archaeology it is time to knock them down to what they really are---just non-belpievers unwilling to allow the bible to be proven true

the following is taken from a lecture by Dr. Philip Davies (oxford and St. andrews educated)

"Most facts are archaeological intrpretation of data. yes there was a destruction level but archaeology doesn't tell you who did it."

"Most archaeological interpretation is imaginative, (&) speculative..."

"archaeology is not fact nor fiction it is a discourse of possibilities."

so much for dever's and finkelstein's views. as i stated before, archaeologists are influeneced by their beliefs, their pre-conceptions and both dever and finkelstein fall into this category. they do not have the answer nor do they publish the answers, they publish their viewpoint based upon their beliefs and interpretation. they are no closer to the truth than kathleen kenyon was, who dated out of thin air. ("kenyon based her dating on what she did not find..." pg. 152 the stones cry out by randall price)

so we can conclude that kenyon was not being scientific, but arbitrary.

[Guest]

one mre thing--minmalist presents finkelstein as some savior to the archaeological world and says he disproved his successor and teacher aharoni.

yet he fails to mention that finkelstein had another teacher who still disagrees with him and in one asar meeting, after finkelstein laid out his disbelief for an ancient israel, finkelsteins teacher (ansan ranie--sp. may be off) was next to speak and just tore finkelstein apart. from a lecture by Dr. John Monson--phd. from harvard and who grew up in israel.

so, finkelstein is just another dissenting voice who uses the weaknesses of archaeology to his advantage. nothing more.

[Minimalist]

First, you'll have to do a better job identifying your source. Googling Phillip Davies produced too many similar names to be able to pick this one out of a crowd. I found political scientists, mathematicians, sociologists and physicists under that name but none seemed to have anything to say about archaeology. Assuming that he is not another frustrated divinity student who sees archaeology destroying his free meal ticket paid for by the gullible, and that's about what I expect from you at this point, I leave it to you to identify your sources. I tried.



You still put far too much emphasis on the disagreements of scholars among themselves. I have already shown you the basis of disagreement between Dever and Finklestein and, thanks to your own efforts, Amihai Mazar. You are a desperate man grasping at straws. They disagree with each other on minor points. You interpret any disagreement, (you do the same thing with evolution, btw) as somehow proving that since science does not have all the answers that your bible-based nonsense must be true! It isn't. It's still horseshit.

The difference between "science" and "bible based horseshit" is that science continues to search for answers while you religious fanatics think you have all the answers in that stupid book. I fully understand your need to bash archaeology and archaeologists because you find its conclusions threatening to your little bible-based world view but science marches on and you are being left in your holy dust.

Get with the program arch.

[Guest]

Googling Phillip Davies

he is at university of sheffield and i have given you most of the information i have myself.

You still put far too much emphasis on the disagreements of scholars among themselves

no i am pointing out the reality of the situation. anyone with a degree and enough moxie can put forth a theory and allow it to be influenced by their unbelief in scripture.

this is what you fail to realize, archaeology is not an exact science nor does the evidence come with date stamps so we are left with subjective reasoning which cannot omit or eliminate the Biblical record. it is as valid as any human theory if not more so.

The difference between "science" and "bible based horseshit" is that science continues to search for answers

that is also the problemwith those who advocate science as the definitve answer field...it never stops when it has the answer in front of them. at least wheni find the answer, i can move on to the next problem and not be stuck researching the same thing for 20-40 years.

I fully understand your need to bash archaeology and archaeologists because you find its conclusions threatening to your little bible-based world view but science marches on and you are being left in your holy dust.

i am not bashing anyone but pointing out the weakness in their positions. you and others whole heartedly discount the Biblical account when there is no valid reason to do so except for the puny reason that it is of a religious nature. as if unbelieving scientists are the only ones who can declare what is right or wrong; that is just arrogant and misleading.

because a source or person has religious ties does not automatically make them in error, the error comes in when non-religious scientists dismiss the accounts because they want to be 'objective' (and so on) and immediately that position denies their motives and makes them bias, corrupting their data and conclusions.

the destruction level is there WHICH provides support for the Biblical account not any other theory.

[Leona Conner]

[quote]at least wheni find the answer, i can move on to the next problem [/quote]

That's just about the best laugh you've provided so far. Since you believe the Bible is the absolute, literal truth, how can you ever have a problem. Or even a question to ask. Everything is laid out for you to accept. In fact, from my understanding you are never to question the Bible. How can a person who calls himself intelligent, just accept a bunch of old myths and wives tales written down by mere humans a couple of hundred after the fact and not feel the need to question them. That goes for both the OT and the NT.

[Guest]

Everything is laid out for you to accept

well in one sense yes, things are laid out pretty neatly but if we want more understanding, more knowledge then we have to dig for the answers especially when we need to apply it to modern life.

for example--we need more knowledge to answer the questions that non-believers ask and the mantra: 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it' just doesn't do the trick.

we believers do need to ask questions, we do need to search for evidence but again we will only get enough of that to support faith, not destroy it. i agree with minimalist and others that believers do not do enough searching or questioning. i do and i have been able to learn many things.

but the problem comes in when someone has a disagreeing opinion and decides to reject our answers, and thatis their choice and then the problem sets in as the person who disagrees (for what ever reason) publishes or lectures and then starts to convince people of his theories.

we believers who do know something can only go so far then the evidence and the accounts become a matter of choice--- whom do you decide to believe> that is the limitation believers face as we must include faith inour thinking while unbelievers demand solid proof.

here are a couple samples of archaeological pieces that i canuse but i am sure that someone will try to discredit them:

1. from w. h. albright--"there can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of old testament tradition...discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details..."

2. the story of samson pulling down a philistine temple---judges 16:29-30

"makes for a great story some might say but is there any factual archaeological evidence to substantiate the likelihood of such an event? yes. two philistine temples have been uncovered by archaeologists. bith temples share an interesting design--- the roof was supported by two central pillars. the pillars were made of wood and rested on stone support bases about six feet apart..."

(both quotes taken from "the collapse of evolution" by scott m. huse pg. 125-126)

now if you don't believe in samson or the Bible then you are going to do what you can to discredit this find.

[Leona Conner]

"makes for a great story some might say but is there any factual archaeological evidence to substantiate the likelihood of such an event? yes. two philistine temples have been uncovered by archaeologists. bith temples share an interesting design--- the roof was supported by two central pillars. the pillars were made of wood and rested on stone support bases about six feet apart..."

So what does that prove. Back then the Philistines built temples with pillars six feet apart. WOW! In an area of the world famous for earthquakes, how does that prove that they were destroyed by a single man.

[quote]we believers do need to ask questions, we do need to search for evidence but again we will only get enough of that to support faith, not destroy it. i agree with minimalist and others that believers do not do enough searching or questioning. i do and i have been able to learn many things. [/quote]

Yes, but you will only accept that which proves what you already believe. If it questions that preconceived idea or questions it, you dismiss it as just more unbelievers nonsense.

[quote]but the problem comes in when someone has a disagreeing opinion and decides to reject our answers, and thatis their choice and then the problem sets in as the person who disagrees (for what ever reason) publishes or lectures and then starts to convince people of his theories. [/quote]

And you have a problem with that? You people have been pushing your beliefs down the throats of humanity for thousands of years, especially that last 2000. Now that we're getting to use the brains we were given at birth and actually finding out the truth, you guys are having a fit. You want us to stop so the rest of the world won't find out.

I have no problem with there being a God. I can even accept that whatever the Creator is, it clapped its hands and the "big bang" happened. But it stops there. It created everything needed for evolution to happend. Now we are on our own, to make our world or destroy it. You God really could care less about humanity as a whole, if you believe otherwise try looking out your window.