Current Biblical Archaeology

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:10 pm

archaeologist wrote:
on a quick search information is slim but here is a quote, pg.13:

"Although not an israelite inscription, this aramaic stela was erected in israel and describes events that took place in the northern kingdom and are reported in the Bible. Despite this important discovery, there are still very few extant documents from israel's neighbors. when those sources mention mention israel, however, they describe events or figures found in the Bible."

"while there maybe differences in perspective and theology between assyrian annals and 1-2Kings, there are no fundamental disagreements."

so again i will choose neither, there are too many ancient habits not being reported by you to make this question feasible.

you will have to provide chapter and verse in the Bible this stela refers to.

<sigh> You know how much I hate rifling through your book of magic but the story is contained in 2 Kings 21-27. I have to go wash my hands after handling that much bullshit.

Anyway, given the fact that the stele had to be re-assembled, ( a fact which figures prominently in the ongoing discussion about whether or not it refers to the House of David at all, this is the translation as we have it so far.

1'. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................]
2'. [.........] my father went up [....................f]ighting at/against Ab[....]
3'. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4'. rael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king.
5'. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ...........[.................]
6'. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
7'. riots and two thousand horsemen. ram son of [Ahab]
8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
9'. of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................]
10'. their land ...[.......................................................................................]
11'. other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-]
12'. led over Is[rael...................................................................................]
13'. siege upon [............................................................]

It clearly indicates that the King of Aram-Damascus (probably Hazael, an actual historical figure) defeated the combined Israelite/Judahite armies in battle and killed both kings....a not uncommon result of warfare in those days when leaders were present on the battlefield....unlike today.

Anyway, given the fact that archaeology backs both the existence and the deeds of Hazael, King of Aram-Damascus, it certainly seems to me that the stele is the more accurate of the two.

The "revolt" of Jehu was doubtless written by Judahite priests, who also wrote the prophecies of Elijah and then, conveniently had their new 'hero' fulfil them (pretty easy to do when you are writing after the fact
The whole purpose of doing so was to remind the goatherders of Judah what happens when Yahweh gets pissed and to keep those shekels flowing in to the temple.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:12 am

So which part of the stelae are you going to ignore?

neither as i am at a loss as to what your point is. there has been nothing discussed that pertains to what you are talking about. i checked several sources and the booki am reading and no controversy is mentioned at all.

i am tired but i will go back and check tomorrow to see what i missed.

It clearly indicates that the King of Aram-Damascus

the book i am reading also says it could have been one of his generals who erected the stela but again no one says that they did battle against hitler when it comes to discussing battlefield results. it is always the general's name that is used; i.e. in africa it is always montegomery vs. rommel not montegomery vs. hitler

so if i am missing your point, sorry

The whole purpose of doing so was to remind the goatherders of Judah what happens when Yahweh gets pissed and to keep those shekels flowing in to the temple

giving money is rarely the reason God punishes his people. it is usually for disobedience or for sin. God only asks for 10%, not much) and if you read the kings passages, you would see that the kings that got punished were those who ignored God and did evil in His sight.

God hates sin and will punish it and He is consistent in that aspect.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:52 am

giving money is rarely the reason God punishes his people

There is no god but the priests who collect the money use him in the same way that a loanshark uses a legbreaker.

It's all one big scam.

Your WWII analogy doesn't cut it, either. Had Hitler or Roosevelt personally led their armies into battle it would be different but in the ancient world the king was expected to get off his ass and get involved.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:14 pm

Your WWII analogy doesn't cut it,

are your children in therapy discussing their childhood and how nothing was ever good enough for you? you can't debate/discuss because you stand in judgment of everything making your opinion the standard which everyone must meet or it is no good.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:04 pm

My kids are fine....of course, they were spared any exposure to this religious horseshit which warps your view of everything.

And everytime you make a foolish analogy, expect to be called on it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:12 am

wasn't foolish but anyways i will digree from the topic in my next post a little detiour and a backing up to clarify a couple things.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:11 am

That would be refreshing.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:39 pm

you probably won't like it

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:44 pm

It will probably be more of your usual nonsense but go ahead.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:23 am

i am preparing a paper on carbon dating and you know i do not ascribe 100% to that method as there is too much room for error. so in my research, i have come across some interesting weaknesses which, of course, would put kenyon's declarations in jeopardy (not the game show).

i have found a lot of information that supports my skepticism of this method and i will post some quotes to that effect.

1. a definition upon which we all could agree: "Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis"

2. some weaknesses: a). "The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant"
b)."Presuming the rate of production of carbon-14 to be constant"
c). "Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix

d). "Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. "
e) "The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. "
f)."There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age"
g). "Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old"
h)."Second, great care must be taken in collecting and packing samples to avoid contamination by more recent carbon"
i). "Finally, although radiocarbon dating is the most common and widely used chronometric technique in archaeology today, it is not infallible. In general, single dates should not be trusted"

we find that carbon dating is as easily manipulated as any other part of science...don't like the date, make it go away... not enough c14 oh well..make some up.

those who use carbonm dating as proof for their arguments really need to be wary as it can be misrepresented and used in a way to 'prove' an argument.

these are some of the reasons why i reject minimalist's point where he stated that kathleen kenyon's arbitrary dating was confirmed by carbon dating. just too convenient especially when no mention of the problems that arise with c14 methods were not included. now if he had said, 'approx.' or 'according to' then i would not have objected like i did but he wanted it to be emphatic so i outright rejected his point.

turns out i was right in doing so, as this method is as subjective as a term paper and depends on who orders the tests, who conducts the tests and what they believe, and so on.

my paper is on another problem i have come across in the c14 dating method, one i have not found discussed in other works (at this time), which totally undermines the c14 credibility. but that will have to wait till after i write the paper...

tj · Post by tj » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:59 am

archaeologist wrote:2. some weaknesses: a). "The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant"
b)."Presuming the rate of production of carbon-14 to be constant"
c). "Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix
d). "Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. "

You're not familiar with Hans Suess are you?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:39 am

tj wrote:
archaeologist wrote:2. some weaknesses: a). "The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant"
b)."Presuming the rate of production of carbon-14 to be constant"
c). "Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix
d). "Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. "
You're not familiar with Hans Suess are you?

Is he a doctor?

tj · Post by tj » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:45 am

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:59 am

i am preparing a paper on carbon dating

Oh, I'm sure this will be good.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html

I'm sure arch will tell us how to carbon date the True Cross..... if there had been a True Cross.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:48 pm

I'm sure arch will tell us how to carbon date the True Cross

as far as i know the cross of Christ disappeared in history never to be found again.

not one credible response, what does that tell me? you can't defend your position, you can't be credible because if no one takes your word for it they are fools. carbon dating is idolized so no one is allowed to question it or point out its flaws. etc...

i think i would have heart failure if someone actually responded in a manner conducive to a serious and balanced discussion.

i read the link---my thoughts---m...i...c...k...e...y.......---not convincing, just the same old propaganda meant to make people brain dead and not investigate the processess in which anti-biblical adherents hang their hats.