Archaeologica.org

Modern archaeology has demonstrated that an ethnic group recognizable as the Israelites or Judahites did not coalesce until the end of the 13th century BC.

that is a mis-representation as it presumes all archaeologists suscribe to that sentiment whenthat is just not true. Modern archaeology has not shown that but only theorized it as i have pointed out in other topics.

modern archaeology is rife with those who do not want the Bible true in any manner and thus propose wild ideas to undermine its truth.

As they were primarily Canaanite refugees from the collapsing Bronze Age cities of the coast it is logical that they incorporated much Canaanite mythology into their subsequent 'belief system.' It also appears that they were not monotheistic at this point in time and that this bible nonsense was not universally adopted until much later, after the Babylonian exile

that again has no proof whatsoever, just hypothesis of those who cannot bring themselves to accept the biblical account. they can no more prove this than they can that there wasn't a snake used by the evil one to talk to adam and eve.

just saying it is impossible doesn't mean it never happened. prove their wasn't a global fllod, or a talking snake.----you can't which means you have to deal with all the Bible says and consider its message.

Your fanaticism is showing again, arch.

I keep asking you for mainstream archaeologists who do not accept the indigenous origin of the Israelites and all you ever come back with are bible-thumping preachers who are watching out for their own source of income.

'Faith' may be enough for you but intelligent people require PROOF.

modern archaeology is rife with those who do not want the Bible true in any manner and thus propose wild ideas to undermine its truth.

Kinda paranoid aren't you arch? All you christian fools think the rest of the world is in league with the devil. Guess what. There ain't no devil and no agenda except the truth. Goofy sumbitch!

archaeologist wrote:prove their wasn't a global fllod, or a talking snake.----you can't which means you have to deal with all the Bible says and consider its message.

Prove that everything, including us, isn't continually being recreated from scratch every tenth of a second by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

You can't, which means you have to deal with it and you simply must consider the awesome power of the mighty Unicorn.

He'd rather believe in an invisible pink unicorn than the process of evolution. At least he could build a cage on the ark for the unicorn!

i love it. again you fail to address the issue but instead focus on everything but. no i am not being paranoid. i am just wondering when someone willpost something logical, concise and understandable to promote their side of the argument instead of the silly stuff i have to read each day.

It's been done over and over but you are so blind you can't see it.

Stick to magic, arch. It works better for you.

Well Arch let us start with the Gilgamesh epoch.Tell me why Noah's fairytale ressembles it ,also telluswhich came first .It hasbeen asked to you many times .You never answered .

the question is, why does the gilgamish epic resembles the Biblical account? why should it be assumed that the Bible is the copycat?

again though, the story of the flood would have been passed down thorugh the generations till the time of the disporea, and even prior to this act many people would have strayed form the teaching of Noah's account and of God.

many versions probably originated at that time. then when God dispersed everyone from Babel, they would have carried their own version or created new ones as time went on and as their beliefs changed throughout the centuries.

All you christian fools think the rest of the world is in league with the devil.

in league with--no, blinded by---yes.

why should it be assumed that the Bible is the copycat?

Because Sumeria is the far older culture. Period.

More to the point, the evidence for Israelite origins within Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age has been accepted by mainstream archaeology. No one is even looking for "the patriarchs" or "the captivity" anymore. It's fiction.

One has to be a blind, bible-thumper to still believe in such abject nonsense.

mainstream archaeology

again you mis-represent the truth. mainstream arch. does not accept that only those in the minimalist camp due and they are so wrong it isn't even funny.

since we have the cave that abraham bought, it puts that myth conclusion in the reject pile.

Because Sumeria is the far older culture. Period.

noah was before the sumerians along with nimrod and a few other people. so obviously the sumerians copied or altered the biblical account.

No one is even looking for "the patriarchs" or "the captivity" anymore. It's fiction.

that is also a lie--you love to mis-represent what is taking place over in the middle east--i have called you on this before and you still do it, when you decide to honestly represent something then come and talk to me.

You continually confuse bible apologists and full blown religious whack jobs who are desperate to 'prove' the bible with real archaeologists who have long since dismissed anything prior to 1000 BC as fantasy.

Cecil B DeMille was not an archaeologist. He was a film maker. Yul Brenner was not pharoah of Egypt. It was fiction. Get it? Fiction.

archaeologist wrote:

mainstream archaeology

again you mis-represent the truth. mainstream arch. does not accept that only those in the minimalist camp due and they are so wrong it isn't even funny.

since we have the cave that abraham bought, it puts that myth conclusion in the reject pile.

Because Sumeria is the far older culture. Period.

noah was before the sumerians along with nimrod and a few other people. so obviously the sumerians copied or altered the biblical account.

No one is even looking for "the patriarchs" or "the captivity" anymore. It's fiction.

that is also a lie--you love to mis-represent what is taking place over in the middle east--i have called you on this before and you still do it, when you decide to honestly represent something then come and talk to me.

We don't have 'the cave that Abraham bought'. We have a claim that the Cave of Machpelah is the cave mentioned in the Bible. Also claims that the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) as well as three matriarchs (Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah), as well as Adam and Eve are buried there.

That isn't the same thing at all. Browsing Usenet I found this by a poster who sums it up:

So we have:

* The Bible says the Cave of Machpelah is the burial place of the
Patriarchs (and Matriarchs).

* Folk tradition has located this in Hebron. The tradition is
widespread, leading pious Muslims to build a mosque honouring the
father of Ishmael on the traditional site.

* This tradition dates back to at least 2nd century BCE (about two
thousand years after Abraham).

* More than three thousand years after Abraham, some Christians
claimed to have found the bones of the Patriarchs at a time when the
sale of religious relics was big business.

Sparrow - all you have given us is the actions of people based on an
ancient folk tradition. The earliest reference you give postdates the
Babylonian Diaspora - I can certainly imagine wily nomads convincing
the returning Judeans that an impressive burial cave was the grave of
the Patriarchs and "reluctantly" selling it to them at a vastly
inflated price.

Folk traditions are not verifiable evidence. If there were four
thousand year old inscriptions in the cave that said "Abraham, father
of Isaac lies here" you might have something.

Vivienne Smythe

--

And we don't have evidence that those patriarchs and matriarchs were real people.

Arch, if your god won't allow the ark to be found because it would remove the need for faith, why would he allow Abraham's cave, or anything biblical for that matter, to be found?

And we don't have evidence that those patriarchs and matriarchs were real people

Quite the contrary, the bible describes them living in a world which did not exist for another thousand years, complete with as-then non-existent trade routes carrying goods on the backs of as-then non-domesticated camels.

Minimalist wrote:

And we don't have evidence that those patriarchs and matriarchs were real people

Quite the contrary, the bible describes them living in a world which did not exist for another thousand years, complete with as-then non-existent trade routes carrying goods on the backs of as-then non-domesticated camels.

Ah yes, evidence that they couldn't have been real people!