Archaeologica.org

Only if you are ready to forget the Quirinius thing...which makes that gospel false.

not at all as i posted that one theorywhich states the greek word can also be translated 'prior to' which makes much more sense and makes both gospels correct.

Another example of your selective acceptance.

i am allowed to pick quotes from anywhere that support my point, nothing wrong with that and i haven't remarked about jposephus yet, he has been in some quotes but i haven't placed any commentary about it here,so hold your judgmental horses please.

Surely all the gospels were written after the death of Christs, and based on memory or hearsay?

Therefore no surprise that they disagree on some events, or even contradict each other in some cases.

Imagine 4 of your friends writing a history of your life a few years after your death. None of them knew you until you were in your 30s. And they have no access to written records of your early life....

i am allowed to pick quotes from anywhere that support my point,

And Darby picked scattered lines out of the bible to come up with his whole Rapture/Armageddon scenario. In fact, you can pick scattered words and string them together however you want and it remains intellectual prostituion.

You are so desperate for proof that you are willing to invent it.

on the census, i will agree to disagree with you minimalist as i think we have an impasse and both have shown our positions are strong.

here is another tidbit to spike the conversation andse what discussion can 'evolve'. again taken from 'Bible Archaeology' by Alfred Hoerth pg. 108 (and another author who shall remain nameless) written 2005:

"In the 1930's an archaeologist claimed that he had found the walls brought down by Joshua, buttheswere subsequently found to date ato a much earlier time period. Later it was claimed that, contrary to the biblical account, Jericho was unihabited at the time of the conquest. In the 1990s, after a re-examination of the excavation records done by Dame kathleen Kenyon, it was concluded that she misread certain evidences and that jericho's walls had, in fact, been breached about 1400 b.c.

The conquest of the next city has also been been the center of archaeological controversy. In the1930s the site et-Tell was suggested as the location of biblical Ai. When excavators found that et-Tell was unoccupid between 2200-1200 b.c., liberal scholars began to redact the Bible to fit the archaeological conclusion. Conservative scholars countered that the city could be under the modern city adjacent tothe excavation area,or that some other location should be sought. AS of this writing(2004-5), some archaeologists claim to have found biblical Ai at a nearby site."

again we see that many liberals decide to make conclusions based upon what is not found, insteadof considering that the site picked may be wrong. the standards to which the bible is placed under are not only unfair but are designed to solely discredit its record and not to serve as a honest guideline in research and investigation.

what is not found can not be interpretated as definitive as there, again, tomany factors involved may have led archaeologists to the wrong site or to find nothing and these factors must be included in any assessment before conclusions can be drawn.

so, now we have the theory that Ai has been discovered, any thoughts?

in case anyoneis interested, here is the link to support that contention of the discovery of biblical Ai:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/bolen/ai.html

i had a look, some pretty pictures of people living in squalor while the church has all the money

The Pictorial Library of Bible Lands

and yet not a single picture from mesopotamia where most of the old testament is actually set
why is that Arch ?

on the census, i will agree to disagree with you minimalist as i think we have an impasse and both have shown our positions are strong.

You can be as ridiculous as you like. You have to stand history on its ear to try to rescue one of your silly gospels while completely ignoring the fact that if you save one you lose the other.

Luke and Matthew completely contradict each other and Mark is silent on the question. One speculates that because Mark came first the subsequent writers found themselves having to answer questions from readers who asked " if he was a real man, where and when was he born?" So they made up some shit. Religion has always done that.

The conquest of the next city has also been been the center of archaeological controversy. In the1930s the site et-Tell was suggested as the location of biblical Ai. When excavators found that et-Tell was unoccupid between 2200-1200 b.c., liberal scholars began to redact the Bible to fit the archaeological conclusion. Conservative scholars countered that the city could be under the modern city adjacent tothe excavation area,or that some other location should be sought. AS of this writing(2004-5), some archaeologists claim to have found biblical Ai at a nearby site."

William Dever recounts the work of Judith Marquet-Krause confirmed by Joseph Calloway showing that Ai was not occupied at all in the Late Bronze Age. Empty from 2250 to 1200 BC it was subsequently re-established as an Iron Age site.

It was Albright, (again) who tried to salvage the biblical tale by saying that Ai.....was somewhere else...not at Ai. Again, a sign of the desperation which bible-thumpers never seem to lose when their fairy tales are questioned.

archaeologist wrote:in case anyoneis interested, here is the link to support that contention of the discovery of biblical Ai:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/bolen/ai.html

LOL. Bryant Wood again. The guy who was discredited by C14 at "Jericho!"

The lead in to the story says it all.

Here is Bryant Wood's report/prayer letter (1998) on the finds at Kh. al-Maqatir (Ai?).

A "report/prayer" is right. And even they are honest enough to put a question mark on it!

YOu should take some lessons from them.

Luke and Matthew completely contradict each other and Mark is silent on the question. One speculates that because Mark came first the subsequent writers found themselves having to answer questions from readers who asked " if he was a real man, where and when was he born?" So they made up some shit.

again, each writer took a different perspective, luke, being a physician, wrote from his; matthew, a tax collector wrote from his. what they focus on is of course up to the leading they received from God.

it is like saying Bruce Catton is wrong and to be discarded because Shelby Foote wrote about different aspects of the civil war. if you are going to apply a strict criteria to the biblical writers then do the same for the secular ones in the same situation. double standards just don't cut it.

archaeologist wrote:

Luke and Matthew completely contradict each other and Mark is silent on the question. One speculates that because Mark came first the subsequent writers found themselves having to answer questions from readers who asked " if he was a real man, where and when was he born?" So they made up some shit.

again, each writer took a different perspective, luke, being a physician, wrote from his; matthew, a tax collector wrote from his. what they focus on is of course up to the leading they received from God.

it is like saying Bruce Catton is wrong and to be discarded because Shelby Foote wrote about different aspects of the civil war. if you are going to apply a strict criteria to the biblical writers then do the same for the secular ones in the same situation. double standards just don't cut it.

But they both have it starting in 1861 and ending in 1865. The history agrees. You can't say that with your gospels.

LOL. Bryant Wood again. The guy who was discredited by C14 at "Jericho!"

again, i would challenge the c-14 dating but wasn't you that said Wood's dating fell within the spectrum of dates given by c-14? so he obviously wasn't discredited.

but again that type of misrepresentation is what i would expect from your side of things.

A Canaanite fortress dating to the 15th century BC has been located on the southeast slope of the site, as well as a Hasmonean fortress constructed in the second century BC, and several Byzantine structures. Pottery from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze and Iron Age I periods has also been found, but with no related architecture. The Canaanite fortress was extensively robbed out in later periods.

here is another example of people beating the archaeologist to th site and creating a problem for identification. grave robbers have done an injustice to the area which leads me to conclude that those secular researchers and those of the minimlist camp are making conclusions without factoring in the missing vital clues.

though the same can apply to the religious camps as well, as many are in haste to prove their perspective without real investigative research and scholarship.

But they both have it starting in 1861 and ending in 1865. The history agrees. You can't say that with your gospels

but neither set exact dates either as again, just like for creation, the flood and other major events, the date is not the most important piece of the story.

when something happened, which is easily debatable, doesn't change the fact that it happened and must be dealt with.

now as for agreeing here are some consistancies:
1. Jesus was born
2. born to Mary & Joseph
3. born in bethleham
4. is the Son of God
5. taught
6. had 12 disciples
7. performed miracles
8. traveled throughout Judea
9. Died on the cross
10. Rose again

so if you are going to use the consistancy argument for Catton & Foote be prepared to use it for the Gospels as well,

placing the Bible on a separate set of standards isn't right and leads to unrealistic criticisms.

again, i would challenge the c-14 dating but wasn't you that said Wood's dating fell within the spectrum of dates given by c-14? so he obviously wasn't discredited

No. He was off by over 125 years.

Worse for Wood's argument, however, is the fact that additional radiocarbon dates have been published for Jericho City IV. If a tree is cut down and later burned for charcoal, the C-14 date will reflect the date the wood was cut rather than the date it was burned. However, this is not a problem with short-lived cereal grains, of which six samples were found in City IV. High-precision radiocarbon dates of these cereal samples yielded a date range from 1601 to 1524 BCE (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, p. 218) - solidly contradicting Wood's chronology, which requires City IV to have been destroyed circa 1400 BCE.

Wood, is a lot like you, though. When contradicted by C14 he denies it's validity. Of course, when early results seemed to support him he was all too willing to accept it.

There is a word for people like that.






Phonies.

here is another example of people beating the archaeologist to th site and creating a problem for identification. grave robbers have done an injustice to the area which leads me to conclude that those secular researchers and those of the minimlist camp are making conclusions without factoring in the missing vital clues.

Now you are hypothesizing about alleged "missing clues." Yet, when Finkelstein finds that evidence of a large Davidic empire is "missing" you are the first one shouting "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense!"


Make up your mind.

1. Jesus was born
2. born to Mary & Joseph
3. born in bethleham
4. is the Son of God
5. taught
6. had 12 disciples
7. performed miracles
8. traveled throughout Judea
9. Died on the cross
10. Rose again

Likewise we can deduce from the writings of HG Wells that
1) the martians existed
2) they were born to alien parents with three legs
3) they were born on mars
4) they were the children of their gods
5) they taught the human race a lesson
5) they had war machines
7) they wiped out large sections of the population miraculously
they travelled through the solar system
9) they died from a bacterial infection
10) they made a comeback in several american b movies

funnily enough the scientific evidence for the existence of aliens far outweighs that for the existence of God unless of course he is in fact an alien in which case it is equal