Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
". . . the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth and early twentieth century
excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex." ["The Bible Unearthed",
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Slberman; Touchstone pub., New York, 2002]
I can quote many many many of these kind of examples ...
Quote:
The reality is, there was no enslavement or Exodus AS the Bible claims, it MAY have happened on a much smaller scale, but the Biblical accounts of
these events are either exaggerated or fantasy.
Quote:
I (personally) was singularly underwhelmed by the pictures of the alleged "cities" presented in Gray's website.
They look suspiciously similar to the formations, claimed by some to be cities, which are found on Mars and the moon.
In addition to the fact that it takes a great deal of imagination (and overlay drawings) to see anything other than natural geologic processes in the formations, there is a distinct lack of buried finds (both cemeteries and occupational debris) that would, presumably, not have been "turned to ash".
You should be aware that any discoveries connected with Ron Wyatt are suspect in the extreme.
Even the Christian "Answers In Genesis" refuses to be affiliated with him, as the following excerpt from one of their sites (linked below) shows:
[AIG] "(Ron) Wyatt claimed to have found just about every conceivable artifact of importance to the Bible. The real Red Sea crossing site, with chariot
wheels; the Ark of the Covenant underneath the actual site of the Crucifixion, replete with the dried blood of Christ (complete with a misunderstanding by
this fraudster of the nature of human genetics) . . . and the chromosomes, it was alleged, were seen to be still dividing! Not surprisingly, the lab that was
said to have confirmed all this is mysteriously unavailable for comment. O, yes, and the real Sodom and Gomorrah, the site of Korah's earthquake, Noah's
grave, Noah's wife's grave (with millions in treasure which some rascal promptly stole) even the fence from Noah's farm, no less. To cap it off, he claimed to have the actual tablets of the Law (bound with golden links, no less) in his garage, as it were. And this is only the beginning of such amazing claims; nearly
100 in all! Not surprisingly, even after his death, none of these treasures has ever been produced."
"He (Ron Wyatt) said that he prayed at the (Noah's) Ark site once, and God caused the ground to tear apart via an earthquake so that he, Wyatt, could see
the petrified ship's timbers. Then it closed again. . . . If one discovers, as we did, . . . that there is a trail of repeated falsehood after falsehood,
public lie upon public lie, the hypothesis (that Ron Wyatt is) a godly, spiritual, latter-day prophet [or credible archaeologist {my insertion}] is easily discredited"
Remember, the above quotation is not from some "biblical minimalist" but from the Christian "Answers In Genesis" organization.
About Saul, David and Solomon;
Quote:
What is it in the archaeological record that makes you think that these three rulers were real people? DO you not find it suspect that the only piece
of 'evidence' that we have for any of these three rulers is the very ambiguous Tel Dan Stele. Wouldn't you expect to find, if the biblical tales are true
regarding these three people, more than this one vague reference?
The Tel Dan Stele is more likely to be a reference to a place or a temple and is not a clear cut reference to King David.
And that's all it is, a reference. And it's not nearly as clear as you hope.
About the Moabite Stele;
Quote:
To my understanding, this is not actually correct. It is line 31 in which Lemaire claims to have discovered the "house of David" inscription. Line 12 reads (from right to left):
s?aw hdwd lara ta m?m b?aw bamlw ?mkl tyr rqh
Which is translated as:
. . . hqr (the town) tyr (belonged) l'kmc (to Kemosh) v'l'mab(and to Moab). vacb(and I brought) mcm (thence) at (direct object indicator) aral (either altar, or, Aral, i.e. Oriel) dwdh (of his beloved, or, his beloved) [some also say chieftain] va?s (and I dragged) . . .
. . . the town belonged to Kamosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged
Or possibly:
. . . the town belonged to Kemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence Aral (Oriel), his beloved (or possibly governor), and I dragged . . .
Line 31 is badly damaged and possibly reads (from right to left):
?a? ?qw? ?b hb b?y nnrwjw xrah nax? ta t(rl yd
For which Lemaire has translated:
"[. . .] the sheep of the land. And the house of David dwelt in Horonen."
Don't ask me how though because I cannot see it. Apparently Lemaire has re-defined some of the characters.
W. F. Albright has: "[. . .] of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it [. . . and]"
Owww, well, no 'house of david' apparently ... (a different theory says it reads 'his David', which could indicate a place, but never a person, because
personal suffixes are not used in personal names in Semitic writings. However most agree Lemaire simply has made stuff up.  )
About a type of floor plan which alledgedly proves Israelites have been around;
Quote:
The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite "four-room house" of the later Iron Age in Palestine
(Holladay 1992a).
At one time the 'four-roomed' house was taken as being purely an Israelite construction. However, your author shows ignorance of the latest research when he
fails to inform his readers that 'four-roomed' houses have been discovered all over syria-palestine, it is no longer taken as evidence of Israelite
settlement.
This settlement type is not unique to Israelites, so this poses a problem. It has become a rather weak argument.
An archaeological professor about websites in general and about this topic in specific: (note the text in italics are not his words.)
Quote:
Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites. Contemporary references to Jacob's 12 sons
have not been found.
Ok, he says that we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites, so we will just say that they are because it supports our pet theory, to
hell with decent evidence, circumstantial will do for us as long as we can support our fairytale in some way, oh and since our audience are uninformed
desparate people they will swallow any garbage we present them with.
You need ot be a bit more critical of your sources, pro-Christian 'biblical archaeology' websites, are ALL full of unsuported assertions, poor research and,
in some cases, blatant lies.
Same archaeologist about a biblical contridiction;
Quote:
Well if one verse is wrong and the other right then the one that is wrong is proven wrong, hence there is an error in the Bible.
Let's break it down. 1 Kings 61: arrives at date of around 1440 BCE, then Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites built the cities of Rameses and Pithom.
There was no Pharaoh called Rameses until c. 1304 BCE, thus the 1 Kings reference is in error.
However, if the 1 Kings reference is correct, then the Israelite would be settled in Canaan from about one hundred years before there ever was a pharaoh
called Rameses.
One of these references is incorrect, therefore the Bible is an erroneous document. This is just a very small problem with the primary history, we haven't
even looked at specific archaeological evidence, and we havent even looked at the different verions of these myths in different versions of the Hebrew
Bible.
Cheers
|
