Current Biblical Archaeology

[Guest]

sounds like a lotof baiting is going on and i didn't bring my fishing rod.

i have in front of me a couple lists of archaeological discoveries that support the biblical accounts (not all are recent), i will place in part some of these finds:

I. New Testament-- 1. archaeology has shown that the useof caves as stables in the holy land has been a common practice from very ancient times; 2. the city of Cana; 3. Bethsaida; 4. The synagogue of Capernaum; 5. Jacob's well; 6.thepontius pilate inscription; 7. caiaphas family tomb; 8. crucifixtion evidence (nail through the feet); 9. the galilee boat; 10. 10 cities of decopolis; 11. fragments of temple warning to gentiles; 12. earliest N.T. fragment; oldest copy of john's gospel, a.d.150-200; 13. greco-roman references to jesus, one by josephus and the other by tacitus

II. Old Testament-- 1. ben hasan tomb painting; 2. Boghazkoy, hittite capital; 3. Haran, home of the patriarchs; 4. horned alters (mentined in the O.T.); 5. Dan (laish); 6. ashkelon; 7. shiloh; 8. Beth shemesh; 9. pool of gibeon; 10. Gibeah; 11. Beth Shean; 12. King David's jerusalem; 13. The house of david inscription; 14. The gezer calendar; 15. House of yahweh ostracon; 16. seals from both israel's and judah's royal court; 17. The siloam tunnel inscription; 18. Sennacherib prism; 19. Carchemish, mentioned only 3 times in the Bible; 20 The tomb of the hezir family.

these are just a few that lend their support to the Biblical record, probably more evidence than socrates or plato ever had or will have and this is just a small list. it is too much to dismiss off hand .........

[Minimalist]

sounds like a lotof baiting is going on and i didn't bring my fishing rod.

i have in front of me a couple lists of archaeological discoveries that support the biblical accounts (not all are recent), i will place in part some of these finds:

I. New Testament-- 1. archaeology has shown that the useof caves as stables in the holy land has been a common practice from very ancient times; 2. the city of Cana; 3. Bethsaida; 4. The synagogue of Capernaum; 5. Jacob's well; 6.thepontius pilate inscription; 7. caiaphas family tomb; 8. crucifixtion evidence (nail through the feet); 9. the galilee boat; 10. 10 cities of decopolis; 11. fragments of temple warning to gentiles; 12. earliest N.T. fragment; oldest copy of john's gospel, a.d.150-200; 13. greco-roman references to jesus, one by josephus and the other by tacitus

II. Old Testament-- 1. ben hasan tomb painting; 2. Boghazkoy, hittite capital; 3. Haran, home of the patriarchs; 4. horned alters (mentined in the O.T.); 5. Dan (laish); 6. ashkelon; 7. shiloh; 8. Beth shemesh; 9. pool of gibeon; 10. Gibeah; 11. Beth Shean; 12. King David's jerusalem; 13. The house of david inscription; 14. The gezer calendar; 15. House of yahweh ostracon; 16. seals from both israel's and judah's royal court; 17. The siloam tunnel inscription; 18. Sennacherib prism; 19. Carchemish, mentioned only 3 times in the Bible; 20 The tomb of the hezir family.

these are just a few that lend their support to the Biblical record, probably more evidence than socrates or plato ever had or will have and this is just a small list. it is too much to dismiss off hand .........

1- So what? ANEP., No.3: This register from a wall painting in the tomb of Khnum-hotep III at Beni Hasan is labeled: "The arriving, bringing eye-paint, which 37 Asiatics brought to him" (cf. ANET, 229). To the far right is the royal scribe Nefer-hotep, who holds a docket giving the date
as the 6th year of Sen-Usert II (about 1890). Behind him is the Overseer
of Hunters Khety, who is followed by "the Ruler of a Foreign Country
Ibsha". (Albright suggests Abi-shar and links the scene to the traveling
of metal workers (see, Gen. 4:19-22).
Ben Hasan, tomb of Khnum-hotep III, north wall, row 3. Wall painting.
Height of figures: about 0.50 m. Sixth year of Sen-Usert II, about 1890.
Porter and Moss, Bibliography, vol. 4, p. 146.


What does this have to do with anything?

2- So what? The Hittites existed. They continued to exist, although not as a powerful empire, well into the historical period.

Next.

3- As you say, a find which probably dates from a time when divinity students masquerading as archaeologists went out to 'prove' the bible. They failed. Modern archaeology dismisses the patriarchs as historical fiction. Get over it.

Next.

4- Dever points out that not only were there 'horned altars, but that your precious Hebrews kept using them well into the historical period. Their attachment to monotheism came much later....probably after the Babylonian captivity.




5- Again so what?, other than as home of the Tel Dan stele...carved to celebrate a victory over the Israelites by Aram-Damascus. We know there was a town there....archaeology has found it.

Next

6- This on Ashkelon:

Canaanite Era:
Excavate the oldest and largest seaport yet known in Israel, and a thriving Middle Bronze Age (2000-1550 B.C.) metropolis of more than 150 acres, with commanding ramparts where the silver calf was found, including the oldest arched city gate in the world, still standing two stories high.

Philistine Era (1175-604 B.C.):
This huge seaport, from the era of David and Goliath, was fortified with thick mudbrick towers and battered slopes. It contained a seaside bazaar and winery, and was the last of the Philistine cities burned down by King Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian armies in 604 B.C.E.

No Israelite presence. Note that date of 1550 BC again. Matches Kenyon's date for the destruction of Jericho. Whoops!



7- Shiloh? So what? There was a city there. It remained in use until well into the historical period.

In the time before the Israelites, the city was strongly fortified with a massive wall and glacis. After the Israelites settled here, the site was unfortified; Iron Age residences were found built into the earlier fortifications

Next

8-

In the course of the past eleven seasons of excavation (1990-2000) mainly remains from the Iron Age (periods of the Judges and the Israelite Monarchy, 12th-7th centuries BCE) were exposed. In the coming years, the expedition plans to excavate the remains of the Canaanite cities that preceded the Israelite ones.

Israelite presence from the 12th century (1100's BC) is completely consistent with Finkelstein's estimate of the beginnings of the Israelite culture? Why do you keep posting things that prove him right?


9- From a web site called Bible Places....Note the question mark!

The Pool of Gibeon?

The Bible references the "pool of Gibeon" several times. Apparently this was a prominent landmark in the city. On one occasion a deadly battle between David's men and Abner's men took place at this pool (2 Sam 2). Some believe that the cylindrical water shaft is to be identified with this biblical place, while others hold that the shaft was constructed later than the 10th century.

Sounds like more wishful thinking by you bible thumpers but when even your own adherents start using question marks you really are on shaky ground!

10- Albright, again. Probably in the 1920's! See earlier comments about bible-thumpers looking to prove the bible.

As a result of his excavations, William F. Albright concluded that five distinct levels of occupation could be discerned on the two acre site.

Next

11- I can't believe you put Beth Shean in! Excavations there have found an Egyptian strong hold dating from the 19th Dynasty; Seti I (1294BC right on down to Ramesses III (1153 BC) The existence of an Egyptian fortress so far north (BethShean is in Galilee) is as clear evidence as any that Egypt dominated the land in the 13th century BC.

What were you thinking!!!!

12- Here you are getting desperate. There is not a single artifact from "King David's Jerusalem" nor from Solomon's Jerusalem. Isn't "Thou Shalt Not Lie" one of those 'commandments' you profess to believe in?



13- Tel Dan inscription discussed above.

Next

14-

The Gezer calendar (named after the city in whose proximity it was found) is written in an old Semitic script, akin to the Phoenician one that through the Greeks and Etruscans later became the Roman script. The Gezer calendar is written without any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the places where later Hebrew spelling requires it.

P.S. Found in the early 1900's and dated, according to prevailing theory by association with Gezer which we now know to be about 100 years later than the traditional dating.

15-

House of Yahweh Ostracon

The House of Yahweh Ostracon (a writing on pottery also known as the “House of God Ostracon”) was discovered in Arad, an ancient Judean city. Written in ancient Hebrew and dated to the early 6th century BC, it is considered to be one of the earliest references to the Temple in Jerusalem outside of the biblical accounts.

Early 6th century would have been shortly before the Babyonians sacked the place. Again, so what?

16- There are scads of seals...all date from the period of state formation in Judah which is consistent with Finkelstein's dating. We've been down this road before....Dever pointed out that there were plenty of idols associated with the seals for the goddess Asherah. Perhaps you remember the discussion now?

Next

17- Siloam Tunnel...cut by Hezekiah at the end of the 8th century BC. Again, completely consistent with Finkelstien.

Next

18- From Sennacherib's Stele:

As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him— the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bêl, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I laid upon him the surrender of their land and imposts—gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers..

Complete translations of the records of Sennacherib

Finkelstein recounts that archaeology has confirmed the broad details of Sennacherib's claim. Jerusalem was beseiged, the rest of the country laid waste and far from some magical plague saving them, the Judahites paid off the Babylonians.

19-

The Battle of Carchemish was fought between the Egyptian army and the Babylonian army. It was fought at Carchemish about 605 BC.

Again, well within the historical period and mainly significant to the Judahites because it meant that they could become a vassal of the Babylonians or be overrun. They chose the former.

20-

The Tomb of Benei Hezir is characterized by its free-standing facade with two Doric columns, all cut into the rock. It has a long Hebrew inscription carved on the architrave above the columns, identifying it as the tomb and nefesh of several members of the Hezir family who had served as priests in the Temple and were buried in the rock-hewn tomb below. The name appears in the Priestly Roster of the First Temple: ...the seventeenth to Hezir (1 Chronicles 24:15) and again among the priests serving in the Second Temple. (Nehemiah 10:20)

Undated but the Doric columns gives a suggestion of Greek influence. One must assume from that a fairly late date as well. Chronicles was written well after the Babylonian captivity according to most reputable biblical scholars.


So I don't know what you expected to prove by all that except that you still have no evidence that contradicts Finkelstein's basic theory at all.

Curl up with your moldy copies of Albright and dream yourself into a bible-thumper heaven because that is about as far as you are going to get with nonsense like this.


Tomorrow, we can take apart the New Testament.

[Minimalist]

I. New Testament-- 1. archaeology has shown that the useof caves as stables in the holy land has been a common practice from very ancient times; 2. the city of Cana; 3. Bethsaida; 4. The synagogue of Capernaum; 5. Jacob's well; 6.thepontius pilate inscription; 7. caiaphas family tomb; 8. crucifixtion evidence (nail through the feet); 9. the galilee boat; 10. 10 cities of decopolis; 11. fragments of temple warning to gentiles; 12. earliest N.T. fragment; oldest copy of john's gospel, a.d.150-200; 13. greco-roman references to jesus, one by josephus and the other by tacitus

Okay - time to take apart the NT.

1- Quite a leap of logic (or faith!) here. Doesn't it occur to you that if the practice remains current - and it is still done to this day - that the authors of the Jesus novel would have known about the it and merely incorporated it into their yarn? People also drank wine and wore sandals and archaeology has duly noted these facts....proves nothing more than they weren't thirsty or barefoot.

2,3,4,5... What's this? A bible traveloge? Not one of these sites has provided any evidence that Jesus Ever Slept There, as the saying goes. It's like driving through Atlanta and exclaiming "this was mentioned in Gone With the Wind!" Does not prove that Scarlett O'Hara was real.
I notice however that you fail to mention the non-existence of Nazareth. How come? Embarassed?

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

6- We know about Pontius Pilate from the writings of Philo of Alexandria. Those same writings which catalogue Pilate's crimes against the Judeans BUT FAIL TO MENTION anything about your boy, Jesus. As we know that Pilate was prefect under Tiberius (d 37 AD) and that Philo's letter was written to Caligula (d 41 AD) there is thus a very narrow time span for dear old Philo to cover. But somehow he seems to know nothing about the guy whom "multitudes" called the Messiah.

More likely, Philo never heard the tale because it was concocted 20 years after his death in 50 AD.

7- Caiaphas family tomb proves that there was a noble family by that name. It means nothing. Further, by the time that the gospels were concocted (70 AD), Jerusalem was in ruins and most of her population dead or enslaved. There would have been few people who could say "that's bullshit."

8- The crucified body found with a nail in its foot was a great archaeological find but there was not a great deal of doubt that the Romans used crucifixion as a means of capital punishment. So for that matter did the Jews as when Alexander Janneus crucified the Pharisees in the first century BC...long before Gnaeus Pompey ever brought Roman standards to the region. Numerous Roman authors commented on the practice of crucifixion. None of them mentions your boy, Jesus.

9- The Galilee boat proves that they had boats in the first century. Unless you can produce a copy of a charter contract signed by Jesus for an excursion on the lake it is irrelevant. Lots of people had boats.

10- These cities prove what? That there was a Roman province of Syria? We don't need the bible to tell us that.

11-

Around the inner court was a balustrade three cubits high called the soreg; the soreg was probably a free-standing structure, separating the outer court from the inner court, and had warning signs regularly spaced along it advising gentiles that entrance into the inner court was forbidden on pain of death

Yeah? So?? Do you think the Roman legionaries who broke in at the end of the seige gave a rat's ass about their warnings?

12- The fact that the earliest NT fragment dates from roughly 150 years after the event speaks volumes about the fact that this stuff was a later creation of gospel writers. Come up with an eyewitness account dated to the first part of the first century and we'll have something to argue about.

13 - The Josephus quote is regarded by serious scholars ( i.e. non bible thumping fanatics) as a forgery for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact early christian writers do not make reference to it in their works.

As for Tacitus the sum total of what he wrote, was:

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

The section in question deals with Nero's searching for scapegoats after the Great Fire of 64 AD (as you might guess...I happen to have a copy of The Annals). As Tacitus was a 7 year old boy at the time it is fairly safe to say that he was not writing his history at the time. Therefore, it is fairly safe to say that Tacitus is merely repeating what he was told by a christian or was merely writing down what he had read. Josephus makes the same mistake about Pilate as Tacitus, btw, referring to him as a 'procurator' rather than as his correct title of Prefect. In any case, it seems certain that Tacitus was not writing from official Roman documents which would never have made such a silly mistake. Everyone knew that Judea was a prefecture under the province of Syria.

I notice that you left out the classical references by Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Not that either of these help you as they refer to "christians" but not to "jesus."


If that's the best you can do I think you better give up this christianity stuff and find something with a little more substance. Zoroastrianism, perhaps?

[Guest]

no, i just like to keep you busy. the more you debunk the more you undermine your own argument. it just shows that you follow those who disbelieve what archaeology has said and have placed their own interpretation upon the discoveries.

which in turn proves what Davies said, that the field of archaeology is rife withpersonal opinion and interpretation that avoids the truth.

[Leona Conner]

[quote="archaeologist"]no, i just like to keep you busy. the more you debunk the more you undermine your own argument. it just shows that you follow those who disbelieve what archaeology has said and have placed their own interpretation upon the discoveries.

which in turn proves what Davies said, that the field of archaeology is rife withpersonal opinion and interpretation that avoids the truth.[/quote]


[size=24][/size]B.S. Again.

[size=12][/size]You know Milk of Magnesia is good for that.

[Minimalist]

Davies is your worst enemy, arch.

He's a leading proponent of the "it-was-all-written-during-the-Hellenistic-age" and has no truth whatsoever.

You should be careful who your friends are.

[Guest]

i posted a quote that is observing a trendor a fact and his leanings do not undermine that observation which, in fact, would go a long ways in proving it true.

one of the things i se here in this topic is the easy and off hand dismissal of anything thathas to do with the Biblical account. yet i have seen the history of this not only here but inprofessional archaeology.

no matter howmany times the Bible has been provento be an accurate ancient source, the secular world goes back to the same old habit of dismissing the claims of the Bible because no one has hit them over the head with the throne of david.

the requirements placed upon the Holy Scriptures are just ludicrious as even though the Bible has been borne out to be true, more demands are made instead of learning that the Bible is not going to lie.

2 cases in point: sargon and the hittites. for generations the only ancient source to mention these historical figures was the Bible and the claims were dismissed until, archaeologistys discovered the remains of both empires and people.

what do these secular people do/ instead of realizing that the Bible is accurate and should not be dismissed, they fail to learn their lessons and contiue on the path of dismissal. though this would never happenwith any of Plato's or other ancient writers work.

the hypocrisy is evident, the double standard is obvious. i posted the annotated lists to give everyone an idea that discoveries re-inforcing the Biblical account cannot be dismissed nor treated in an off hand manner, there are just too many.

itis time to take the Bible seriously and not relegate it off to the out of date shelf.

[marduk]

no matter how many times the Bible has been provento be an accurate ancient source

ah so you equate a part of it being based on a factual piece of data means that it is all true
so in that case war of the worlds is true
its based in surrey in the victorian period
go check both surrey and the victorian period existed
it uses names that are endemic to the people of the time
describes events that happened to the people of the time
describes technology that was available at the time

so to claim that you believe the bible is totally factual means that you must also claim that the martians invaded england at the end of the 19th century

or can't you see past your blinkers on that one

[Minimalist]

2 cases in point: sargon and the hittites. for generations the only ancient source to mention these historical figures was the Bible and the claims were dismissed until, archaeologistys discovered the remains of both empires and people.

Typical ethnocentric nonsense. Who was 'looking' for them? Turkey and Palestine were controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The people living on site of those ruins probably didn't give a shit one way or the other but as soon as western scholars were permitted to start digging they found the ruins of the Hittite Empire in short order.

Your analogy is a little like saying "for hundreds of years we thought the moon was made of green cheese" but when we got there in 1969 we found out otherwise.

no matter howmany times the Bible has been provento be an accurate ancient source, the secular world goes back to the same old habit of dismissing the claims of the Bible because no one has hit them over the head with the throne of david

A gross distortion of reality. In fact, there is virtually nothing in the bible which has any historical reliability prior to the establishment of the Omride Dynasty in the north. Everytime you are asked to provide "proof" you get all huffy and claim that everyone hates your bible. Well, let's be clear. I DO hate your fucking bible. But I'm not the one out there digging up the evidence that it is full of holy shit. Archaeology has made its determination....it is now up to you and the other bible thumpers to come up with artifacts which prove your case.

itis time to take the Bible seriously and not relegate it off to the out of date shelf.

'

It belongs in the dustbin of history. There is never a point to taking fairy tales seriously.

[Guest]

Everytime you are asked to provide "proof" you get all huffy and claim that everyone hates your bible.

i do provide proof but you are never satisified. remember the article from U.S. News & World Report on the walking snake? you wouldn't be satisfied even if i brought in the actual 7-10,000 year old snake still walking and talking.

you just refuse to listen to anything contrary to that which is established by your own hatred. which by the way undermines anything you present as your own objectivity is non-existant and can't be relied upon as honest or scientific

Archaeology has made its determination..

no, archaeology still supports the Bible it is those secular professionals who do not believe the Bible that have made a determination.

[Minimalist]

i do provide proof but you are never satisified. remember the article from U.S. News & World Report on the walking snake? you wouldn't be satisfied even if i brought in the actual 7-10,000 year old snake still walking and talking.

Yes I would....I'd even take a Mpeg file of it. Post 'em if you've got 'em!

no, archaeology still supports the Bible it is those secular professionals who do not believe the Bible that have made a determination.

You keep saying that and then come up with something that Albright wrote in 1922. The science of archaeology has moved beyond those distinguished, but biblically blinded scholars, of the early days had to say.
Then, when it is pointed out that they've been superceded you claim that modern science is wrong but old science is right because it supports your fairy tales. Remember how many times I've asked you if you wanted to go to a doctor whose medical training stopped in 1922?

[Minimalist]

Here, arch, an essay from Phillip Davies. You'll love the part where he rips into Dever....although probably for the wrong reason.


http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.htm

For that reason I am not satisfied merely to conclude (as is that “minimalist” Dever, for instance) that the stories of Genesis to Joshua are unhistorical. I also want understand what the stories mean to communicate and why. To discover “what the biblical writers knew” is both impossible and misguided; the question of one untrained in the interpretation of ancient texts and bound to literality as the only criterion of validity remains. What the writers said and meant, who they were, who were their audience, and why they said what they did: these are questions for biblical critics of a historical bent. My reasons for thinking that most of the biblical writings were composed in the Persian period by urban intellectuals are manifold. Essentially, I ask what motives the writers might have had for compiling, in stages, an epic history that went back to creation, for inventing a twelve-tribe nation that escaped from Egypt and annihilated the “Canaanites,” generated several portraits of an ideal society set in a mythical wilderness scenario, developed an aniconic monotheistic religion and assigned it to antiquity, and so on (for the arguments in more detail, see Davies 2001).

My conviction that the writings are not to be approached as history is based not on some obscure prejudice and does not imply that there are no historical elements whatsoever: only that the picture as a whole is ideal, not real, that there never was a society (more strictly, societies) such as the Pentateuch or Joshua or Judges depicts. My theory is that the canonized writings represent a monumental project, partly conscious and partly unconscious, of defining the origins and nature of a society re-established in a small province of the Persian empire, a society composed of a group of Aramaic-speaking immigrants and a large number of indigenous, Hebrew-speaking “people of the land.” The process of creating a nation, a religion, a society, took centuries but began essentially after the period of independent statehood had disappeared. (I have spelled out my account of the growth of the biblical canon in Davies 1998). You will not find a critique of this rather detailed argument in any of the writings of Dever or Shanks because it has little to do with archaeology and goes far beyond simple-minded questions of “is the Bible true or not?”

[Guest]

Here, arch, an essay from Phillip Davies. You'll love the part where he rips into Dever....although probably for the wrong reason.

don't mis-understand me, i found a few things i liked in what davies said which illustrate or support the points i am making. i do not whole hearily support him or blindly accept everything he says.

You keep saying that and then come up with something that Albright wrote in 1922.

not always but i have to use the evidence i find besides albright and some of those early pioneers were a lot smarter than the ones working today

when it is pointed out that they've been superceded you claim that modern science is wrong

i am usually saying that modern science is not infallible and has been proven wrong and allows too many influences to corrupt its processes. you automatically disqualify anything that disagrees with finkelstein or modern science, so i guess you are talking about yourself there as well.

to digress for a moment and illustrate a couple points that may have been touched on or not. it is a common criticism to say the Bible is in error when all the facts are not spelled out in a manner acceptable to scientists. which leads to offhand dismissal in most cases:

"Some scholars have faulted the Bible for not naming the pharaohs involved with abraham, joseph and moses, andhave used this silence as evidence that the Bible's early history is suspect. Egyptologists have, however, established that until the 10th century b.c., the title of pharaoh stood alone in egyptian texts. It was only then thatt the title began to be followed by the name of the specific king. The biblical writers were simply following Egyptian precedent."

then off to the chronolgies , though not discussed are used as criticisms for timing, etc.:

"Until the first millenium b.c., the Bible contains only a handful of date pegs. Then by contrast, the books of kings and chronicles are very rich in chronological detail...But whenthis wealthof information is carefully studied, various disharmonies seem to exist within the biblical text. Charges of obvious error were raised by liberal scholars and corrected chronologies were proposed.

Then in the 1950s the scholar edwin r. thiele demonstrated that the Old Testament followed several chronological practices in use in the ancient near east."

taken from Bible Archaeology by hoerth and mcray 2005, pg. 19

these offhand dismissals, much like what you do, end up giving you the wrong information and the wrong conclusions. which is why i cannot go along with modern science nor finkelstein and dever among others.

there are toomany secular methods employed that muddy the waters and your hatred is one such example.

[Minimalist]

Here, arch, an essay from Phillip Davies. You'll love the part where he rips into Dever....although probably for the wrong reason.

don't mis-understand me, i found a few things i liked in what davies said which illustrate or support the points i am making. i do not whole hearily support him or blindly accept everything he says.

You shouldn't. He thinks your bible is a much bigger bag of fertilizer than Finkelstein. I guess I have to read his book.

You keep saying that and then come up with something that Albright wrote in 1922.

not always but i have to use the evidence i find besides albright and some of those early pioneers were a lot smarter than the ones working today

Pretty much. You find things which support your position, and those things were pretty much in the ascendancy early in the 20th century, and then think that science should stop trying to improve because to do so casts doubt on your mythology. Science does not work that way....but mythology does.

when it is pointed out that they've been superceded you claim that modern science is wrong

i am usually saying that modern science is not infallible and has been proven wrong and allows too many influences to corrupt its processes. you automatically disqualify anything that disagrees with finkelstein or modern science, so i guess you are talking about yourself there as well.

AS I've said: Science improves its methods in every field EXCEPT archaeology because it makes you uncomfortable? That's asinine. Now it is true that Finkelstein battles constantly with other archaeologists. What you refuse to understand is that even were he to be proven wrong the difference in chronology between the two sides is at most 125 years...not 2,000. As Dever pointed out, no one is even looking for the Exodus or patriarchs any longer....those fantasies have been dumped. Somehow, you think that by denying that, you change archaeology. There is still no one outside the lunatic fringe of Noah's Ark Searchers who are even looking. Get over it.


to digress for a moment and illustrate a couple points that may have been touched on or not. it is a common criticism to say the Bible is in error when all the facts are not spelled out in a manner acceptable to scientists. which leads to offhand dismissal in most cases:

"Some scholars have faulted the Bible for not naming the pharaohs involved with abraham, joseph and moses, andhave used this silence as evidence that the Bible's early history is suspect. Egyptologists have, however, established that until the 10th century b.c., the title of pharaoh stood alone in egyptian texts. It was only then thatt the title began to be followed by the name of the specific king. The biblical writers were simply following Egyptian precedent."

Who said that? Here is a translation of part of the Merneptah Stele - the only one in Egypt which mentions Israel. Note that Merneptah's name is prominently mentioned....and Merneptah followed Ramesses II at the end of the 13th century BC...not the 10th.

And there was world peace, and all the people who just couldn’t sit still were tied up somehow by the handless but marvelous bull-sun-king Merneptah!

then off to the chronolgies , though not discussed are used as criticisms for timing, etc.:

"Until the first millenium b.c., the Bible contains only a handful of date pegs. Then by contrast, the books of kings and chronicles are very rich in chronological detail...But whenthis wealthof information is carefully studied, various disharmonies seem to exist within the biblical text. Charges of obvious error were raised by liberal scholars and corrected chronologies were proposed.

Then in the 1950s the scholar edwin r. thiele demonstrated that the Old Testament followed several chronological practices in use in the ancient near east."

taken from Bible Archaeology by hoerth and mcray 2005, pg. 19

Then in the 1950s the scholar edwin r. thiele ( ! ) Exactly, back to the 1950's for your proof. I rest my case.

these offhand dismissals, much like what you do, end up giving you the wrong information and the wrong conclusions. which is why i cannot go along with modern science nor finkelstein and dever among others.

The bible is a load of horseshit from the 7th century or perhaps later.
Understand that science does not give a damn what you think and I only argue with you for the fun of it. You are a hopeless case with your devotion to that old book but if you want to waste your life believing it, that's fine.....just don't expect to throw such nonsense out here and not have it challenged.

there are toomany secular methods employed that muddy the waters and your hatred is one such example.

The bible deserves to have mud thrown on it.

[Guest]

then think that science should stop trying to improve because to do so casts doubt on your mythology

i do not attack science but those who implement itas they have many mitigating factors which influence their conclusions, thus it isnot science i am worried about but those who mis-use it. whether they be secular or religious.

Who said that?

it is inthe book,take itup with the author not me and i am sure you mis-apply the word 'texts' to mean 'stele' which is not a text but a monument but your presentation always does that, leave out a few details in hopes people won't notice.

Exactly, back to the 1950's for your proof

again, it was in the same book, take it up with the author and guess what---if you find the truth, you don't need to improve on it.

Understand that science does not give a damn what you think and I only argue with you for the fun of it.

that may be so,but i give a d--- about how science is used, essssssssspeciiiiially (just for marduk) when it is applied to the Bible.

You are a hopeless case with your devotion to that old book but if you want to waste your life believing it, that's fine

i may be hopeless but my life isn't wasted, look at how much i have learned even here at this site.