Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
Suzanne
> On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Minna Lönnqvist (2008): Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906-1978, A hundred years
> > > after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
> > > socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
> > > revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
> > > Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
> > > 3-8 2006, ed. by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez,
> > > Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez, UAM Ediciones: Madrid 2008, Vol. II,
> > > pp. 379-414.
>
> > Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
> > agree with these authors.
>
> Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
> academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported
>
Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
always have, always will. Many also supported the
earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
So what else is new? People that ignore what has
been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
what the evidence should be, top the list of people
who follow wrong things. But there are many who
do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
they are claiming.
>
>
> > > > > ",When archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon worked at the site of Jericho in the
> > > > > 1950s, she stated that she had not found collapsed walls or anything which
> > > > > proved habitation of Jericho during the time of Joshua. In short, there was
> > > > > no battle for him to fight. There was... an earlier, fortress city that
> > > > > around 1550 BC showed signs of destruction. There were fallen walls and a
> > > > > layer of ash a yard thick, a clear sign of violent destruction by fire. Her
> > > > > interpretation, however, was that this happened before the Israelites
> > > > > captured Jericho. "
>
> > Burhard, 1550 B.C. is too late for the Israelites
> > to have been at Jericho. This is a difference of
> > 105 years.
>
> Too early, not to late - we are BC here, so you need to count
> backwards. And yes, that is _exactly_ the point: The ruins of the wall
> are simply too old to have been destroyed by the Israelites.
>
Yes, I meant early. And no. The walls would not have
been built the day that the Israelites arrived, they
would be much older and built long before. For
example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate
at the museum in Germany, and say that I visited it
last year, someone could not disprove that I was
there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to be
hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date
in which I visited it. Everything in a layer of city will
not date with the same date, since they would be
built at different times. If you dated the buildings in
New York, you would not get the same ages of the
buildings at all. K K did not examine but a small
portion for pottery, and that far away from other
parts she examined. I've given a website that tells
great details about this.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
So you think that you have to look in the bible and then find evidence
to support it?
That dishonest idea went out the window at least 60 years ago.
Problem with you is that most of the links you give are not from
reputable archaeology sites or from peer reviewed publications.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Harry K
> On Nov 21, 6:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Minna Lönnqvist (2008): Kathleen M. Kenyon 1906-1978, A hundred years
> > > > after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
> > > > socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
> > > > revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
> > > > Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
> > > > 3-8 2006, ed. by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez,
> > > > Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez, UAM Ediciones: Madrid 2008, Vol. II,
> > > > pp. 379-414.
>
> > > Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
> > > agree with these authors.
>
> > Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
> > academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported
>
> Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
> always have, always will. Many also supported the
> earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
> So what else is new? People that ignore what has
> been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> who follow wrong things. But there are many who
> do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
> they are claiming.
>
>
The "look in the bible to find what the evidence should be" went out
of archaeology a century ago. People who do science do _NOT_ decide
aforehand what the conclusion will be.
Harry K
Hatunen
>People that ignore what has
>been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
>what the evidence should be, top the list of people
>who follow wrong things.
Now there we have Suzanne's weltanschauung in a nutshell: One
should look in the Bible to see what your evidence should be. The
corollary is, of course, if the Bible indicates the evidence
shouldn't be, then reject the evidence.
And that's why engaging in discussions with Suzanne are
pointless.
*plonk*
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Burkhard
The _destruction_ of the wall is earlier, not (just) the wall itself.
And you see this, if you actually read Kenyon's work, by the things that
were found on top of the ruins, and thinks things found in the ruins. .
For
> example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate at the museum
> in Germany, and say that I visited it last year, someone could not
> disprove that I was there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to
> be hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date in which I
> visited it.
I'm unsure what, if any, point you want to make here. If you simply
inspect the gate visually, you can get an idea of how to date it, by
comparing it to already dated works of art. If you then analyse the
building material more closely, you will find lots of incongruencies -
the wood to young etc etc. This is because the Gates is essentially a
rebuild form the 1930, using material from the original dig but also
lots and lots of more recent material to fill the gaps. That gives you a
"not before" point and a "probably not after" point. (the latter to be
treated with care as you can of course use older material) On even
closer inspecting, an archaeologist would be able to tell you with a
high degree of precision which parts are old and which parts are new,
and when they were added.
None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
Same with the wall: from the artefacts found in the ruins, and from
dating what was on top of them, we can pretty accurately date when they
were destroyed.
Now, to use your analogy: If we found a photograph of you in the rubble
of the fire ravaged Babylon Gate in Berlin, you'd have trouble claiming
that it was destroyed before you were even born.
Everything in a layer of city will
> not date with the same date, since they would be built at different
> times.
Indeed. that is the point, and because you build one layer on top of
the other and not the other way round, you get a relative date. Which,
again, shows that the wall in question was destroyed long before Joshua
If you dated the buildings in
> New York, you would not get the same ages of the buildings at all. K
> K did not examine but a small portion for pottery, and that far away
> from other parts she examined.
That is a claim Wood made on the basis of a dubious interpretation of
her excavation notes. Her fully published record (with pictures of the
finds) of the dig refutes this already (I gave you a reference to her
book) I also gave you references to other archaeologists who point out
that Wood is factually wrong on this, plain and simple. Kenyon's dig, as
all her digs, was constrained and based on specific sampling techniques,
but apart from Wood (who made it clear he does not care about the facts)
everybody believes that the numerous objects she foudn are already
sufficient for confident dating.
And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
considerably more extensive confirmed her findings
I've given a website that tells
> great details about this.
By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
- note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
And again, in any case this is moot after the Italian excavation from
the late 1990, that was not only much more extensive, but also benefited
from the much more refined methods developed partly in response to
Kenyons approach, and which are not subject to Wood's criticism
See in particular Herr, Larry G. (2002), "W.F. Albright and the
History of Pottery in Palestine", NEA 65.1 (2002), pp.51-55
> Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Bible to try to make it fit the evidence. Kathleen
Kenyon found the evidence. I was not surprised
when she reported that the grains in the burned
layer were still in tact, not taken as spoils of war.
It was no surprise that the rubble of bricks had
been outside of the city forming natural ramparts
into the city for a visiting army. It didn't surprise
me at all that they layer was burned. It was also
no surprise that the Italians found the base of the
walls even though others tried to claim that there
were no walls in that period.
trying to cover it up. You have tried your best to
cover up the evidence that Kathleen Kenyon,
Garstang, and the Italians found. Enough people
have been there and saw these things, too.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
that she saw piles of bricks that were "blackened and
reddened by fire" outside the city layer that was
burned that had the foodstuffs (grain) still in containers
that had not been taken as spoils of war. She was
not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
want to go by the Bible, and so by doing that, she
did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
not say that the walls were from another time, because
she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
with fire" bricks as being the walls.
>
> For
>
> > example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate at the museum
> > in Germany, and say that I visited it last year, someone could not
> > disprove that I was there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to
> > be hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date in which I
> > visited it.
>
> I'm unsure what, if any, point you want to make here. If you simply
> inspect the gate visually, you can get an idea of how to date it, by
> comparing it to already dated works of art. If you then analyse the
> building material more closely, you will find lots of incongruencies -
> the wood to young etc etc. This is because the Gates is essentially a
> rebuild form the 1930, using material from the original dig but also
> lots and lots of more recent material to fill the gaps.
>
to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon
Gate? That's ridiculous.
>
> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>
that are in my family saw it though, and it can be
viewed online here as well. This is the 3,000 year
old Ishtar Gate from Babylon, brought to Germany
after the war. It is preserved and in the Pergamon
Museum.
www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/babylon.html
>
> Same with the wall: from the artefacts found in the ruins, and from
> dating what was on top of them, we can pretty accurately date when they
> were destroyed.
>
> Now, to use your analogy: If we found a photograph of you in the rubble
> of the fire ravaged Babylon Gate in Berlin, you'd have trouble claiming
> that it was destroyed before you were even born.
>
> Everything in a layer of city will
>
> > not date with the same date, since they would be built at different
> > times.
>
> Indeed. that is the point, and because you build one layer on top of
> the other and not the other way round, you get a relative date. Which,
> again, shows that the wall in question was destroyed long before Joshua
> If you dated the buildings in
>
content in what you are writing but denials, and
you are providing no factual information.
>
> > New York, you would not get the same ages of the buildings at all. K
> > K did not examine but a small portion for pottery, and that far away
> > from other parts she examined.
>
> That is a claim Wood made on the basis of a dubious interpretation of
> her excavation notes. Her fully published record (with pictures of the
> finds) of the dig refutes this already (I gave you a reference to her
> book) I also gave you references to other archaeologists who point out
> that Wood is factually wrong on this, plain and simple. Kenyon's dig, as
> all her digs, was constrained and based on specific sampling techniques,
> but apart from Wood (who made it clear he does not care about the facts)
> everybody believes that the numerous objects she foudn are already
> sufficient for confident dating.
>
interpretation of her excavation notes." No.
There is nothing "dubious" about what she wrote. He
is going by what she wrote. She clearly reported all
that I have told you that she reported, and you have
been given websites showing what those things are.
>
> And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
> considerably more extensive confirmed her findings
>
did not find since her work (clearly seen in the URL
I gave) only covered a small portion of Jericho. The
Italians further work, simply was in addition to what
she had already found. They did not refute what she
had found. They proved there were walls, since they
dug to find the base of the walls.
>
> > I've given a website that tells
>
> > great details about this.
>
> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
> conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>
what things she found that is evidence. No one has
dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
in question is her theories that have no evidence.
She found the layer that was burned that matches
exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says. Her theory
is that they were not there at the same time as
this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
that is not a find, but a speculation.
>
> And again, in any case this is moot after the Italian excavation from
> the late 1990, that was not only much more extensive, but also benefited
> from the much more refined methods developed partly in response to
> Kenyons approach, and which are not subject to Wood's criticism
>
You are not being accurate. The Italians did not
overturn what she found. You can't overturn what
someone finds. They found the base of the walls
IN ADDITION to the things she found.
>
to what she found.
> See in particular Herr, Larry G. (2002), "W.F. Albright and the
> History of Pottery in Palestine", NEA 65.1 (2002), pp.51-55
>
I've been quoting Albright as well as Kenyon, and also
Garstang if you have paid any attention. You seem to
have missed a lot of what has been said and shown.
>
Suzanne
>
Ye Old One
Unlike you I never feel the need to lie.
>I have not looked in the
>Bible to try to make it fit the evidence.
But you claim above that people should "look in the Bible to see what
the evidence should be"
>Kathleen
>Kenyon found the evidence. I was not surprised
>when she reported that the grains in the burned
>layer were still in tact,
I would have been surprised if they had not been intact.
> not taken as spoils of war.
There was no war. Jericho was destroyed by natural disaster.
>It was no surprise that the rubble of bricks had
>been outside of the city forming natural ramparts
>into the city for a visiting army.
Walls fall. Being mostly mud brick the walls quite quickly just became
heaps of soil.
> It didn't surprise
>me at all that they layer was burned.
There are several burnt layers during its long history. This was a
problem with many ancient settlements.
> It was also
>no surprise that the Italians found the base of the
>walls even though others tried to claim that there
>were no walls in that period.
There were no walls at the time the bible claims - the settlement was
largely abandoned.
As yet you have not provided links to peer reviewed material. Yo seem
to favour sites that exclude things if they are not in the bible.
>You are the one
>trying to cover it up.
Nope. I know reality hurts you, as it does a lot of creationists. But
nobody can change the facts to please you.
>You have tried your best to
>cover up the evidence that Kathleen Kenyon,
Nope. What has happened is that you poor reading ability prevented you
from understanding that she does not support your world view.
>
>Garstang, and the Italians found. Enough people
>have been there and saw these things, too.
They have. Ant the experts on the subject agree - the bible story is
not real.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Well of course they were not taken as spoils of war - there was no
war.
It is a reconstruction.
You will find a picture of what was actually on site here:-
http://www.kaldaya.net/2009/09/Sep03_09_E2_IshtarGate_files/image002.jpg
Of course only small parts of the actual wooden gates survived but the
reconstruction is very impressive.
>>
>> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
>> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
>> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
>> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
>> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
>> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
>> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
>> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>>
>My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself. Some
>that are in my family saw it though, and it can be
>viewed online here as well. This is the 3,000 year
>old Ishtar Gate from Babylon, brought to Germany
>after the war. It is preserved and in the Pergamon
>Museum.
>www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/babylon.html
No, it is reconstructed. Some material is original but as many of the
original relief's are in other museums around the world....
You can see the sides of the passageway reconstructing the street of
the Ishtar gate, albeit reduced in size by 2/3, in a video here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYg5muzIMU
But what, when all said and done, has the Ishtar Gate to do with
Jericho?
>>
>> Same with the wall: from the artefacts found in the ruins, and from
>> dating what was on top of them, we can pretty accurately date when they
>> were destroyed.
>>
>> Now, to use your analogy: If we found a photograph of you in the rubble
>> of the fire ravaged Babylon Gate in Berlin, you'd have trouble claiming
>> that it was destroyed before you were even born.
>>
>> Everything in a layer of city will
>>
>> > not date with the same date, since they would be built at different
>> > times.
>>
>> Indeed. that is the point, and because you build one layer on top of
>> the other and not the other way round, you get a relative date. Which,
>> again, shows that the wall in question was destroyed long before Joshua
>> If you dated the buildings in
>>
>I'm seeing you write, but you don't have any
>content in what you are writing but denials, and
>you are providing no factual information.
You have been given all the factual information, several times.
Good.
> They proved there were walls,
Nobody doubted there were walls.
> since they
>dug to find the base of the walls.
Dug through the layers of destruction caused by a natural disaster at
least 150 years before the bible claims.
>>
>> > I've given a website that tells
>>
>> > great details about this.
>>
>> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
>> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
>> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
>> conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
>> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
>> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
>> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
>> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
>> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>>
>I'm going to say this again. He did not dismiss
>what things she found that is evidence. No one has
>dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
>in question is her theories that have no evidence.
Her dating is respected. That shows the bible is wrong.
>She found the layer that was burned that matches
>exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says.
Well, no, not exactly.
> Her theory
>is that they were not there at the same time as
>this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
>that is not a find, but a speculation.
Her dating is not speculation, dating that has been confirmed by later
studies, dating the proves the bible wrong.
>>
>
>> And again, in any case this is moot after the Italian excavation from
>> the late 1990, that was not only much more extensive, but also benefited
>> from the much more refined methods developed partly in response to
>> Kenyons approach, and which are not subject to Wood's criticism
>>
>You are not being accurate. The Italians did not
>overturn what she found. You can't overturn what
>someone finds. They found the base of the walls
>IN ADDITION to the things she found.
The base of one of several walls, built over a very long period of
time.
>>
>to what she found.
>> See in particular Herr, Larry G. (2002), "W.F. Albright and the
>> History of Pottery in Palestine", NEA 65.1 (2002), pp.51-55
>>
>I've been quoting Albright as well as Kenyon, and also
>Garstang if you have paid any attention. You seem to
>have missed a lot of what has been said and shown.
You seem to keep missing the part where modern experts have shown the
bible is not a guild to history in the area and that the real
archaeology does not back up many of the bible stories - the story of
Jericho being a very good example.
Burkhard
>>>>> Burhard, 1550 B.C. is too late for the Israelites to have been at
>>>>> Jericho. This is a difference of 105 years.
>>>> Too early, not to late - we are BC here, so you need to count
>>>> backwards. And yes, that is _exactly_ the point: The ruins of the
>>>> wall are simply too old to have been destroyed by the Israelites.
>>> Yes, I meant early. And no. The walls would not have been built the
>>> day that the Israelites arrived, they would be much older and built
>>> long before.
>> The _destruction_ of the wall is earlier, not (just) the wall itself.
>> And you see this, if you actually read Kenyon's work, by the things that
>> were found on top of the ruins, and thinks things found in the ruins. .
>>
> No that is not what Kathleen Kenyon said. She said
> that she saw piles of bricks that were "blackened and
> reddened by fire" outside the city layer that was
> burned that had the foodstuffs (grain) still in containers
> that had not been taken as spoils of war.
That is a totally confused account of her work. Just try read it in the
original, I gave you the references.
She was
> not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
> want to go by the Bible,
flatly contradicted by chapter 1 of her book, Excavating the Holy land.
Of course she knew the bible story, and this was her motivation to dig
there in the first place.
and so by doing that, she
> did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
> so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
> not say that the walls were from another time, because
> she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
> with fire" bricks as being the walls.
Of _course_ she did. It is right there, in her books.
>> For
>>
>>> example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate at the museum
>>> in Germany, and say that I visited it last year, someone could not
>>> disprove that I was there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to
>>> be hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date in which I
>>> visited it.
>> I'm unsure what, if any, point you want to make here. If you simply
>> inspect the gate visually, you can get an idea of how to date it, by
>> comparing it to already dated works of art. If you then analyse the
>> building material more closely, you will find lots of incongruencies -
>> the wood to young etc etc. This is because the Gates is essentially a
>> rebuild form the 1930, using material from the original dig but also
>> lots and lots of more recent material to fill the gaps.
>>
> What are you even talking about? Are you now trying
> to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon
> Gate? That's ridiculous.
The Babylon Gate in the Pergamon Museum is indeed mainly a
reconstruction build in 1930 in Berlin, using as much of the old
material as possible (from the the excavation of Robert Koldewey)Parts
of the original gate are all over the world, including the The Istanbul
Archaeology Museum, the Detroit Institute of Arts the National Museum
in Gothenburg, the Louvre, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, ets
etc. What you see ion Berlin are mostly replicas, though pretty
impressive ones.
see King, Leo. The Ishtar Gate. Ceramics Technical; Issue 26; 2008;
51-53.
>> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
>> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
>> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
>> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
>> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
>> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
>> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
>> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>>
> My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself.
You made a hypothetical argument ("If I went etc") , I simply followed
your scenario and showed why it does not help your case.
Some
> that are in my family saw it though, and it can be
> viewed online here as well. This is the 3,000 year
> old Ishtar Gate from Babylon, brought to Germany
> after the war. It is preserved and in the Pergamon
> Museum.
> www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/babylon.html
>> Same with the wall: from the artefacts found in the ruins, and from
>> dating what was on top of them, we can pretty accurately date when they
>> were destroyed.
>>
>> Now, to use your analogy: If we found a photograph of you in the rubble
>> of the fire ravaged Babylon Gate in Berlin, you'd have trouble claiming
>> that it was destroyed before you were even born.
>>
>> Everything in a layer of city will
>>
>>> not date with the same date, since they would be built at different
>>> times.
>> Indeed. that is the point, and because you build one layer on top of
>> the other and not the other way round, you get a relative date. Which,
>> again, shows that the wall in question was destroyed long before Joshua
>> If you dated the buildings in
>>
> I'm seeing you write, but you don't have any
> content in what you are writing but denials, and
> you are providing no factual information.
I have given you precise citations for everything I said, so that you
can check it in the academic literature. The _fact_ is that
stratigraphic analysis by Kenyon and the Italian team clearly shows that
there was a settlement at the time of Joshuha _on top_ of the already
destroyed wall.
You can read it up here;
K. Kenyon: Guide to Ancient Jericho, Jerusalem, 1954
and also here:
K Kenyon Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium
B.C.", PEQ 83 (1951), 101-138.
and on the more recent digs that confirm her findings:
Nicolo Marchetti and Lorenzo Nigro Excatations at Jericho, 1998:
Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Archaeological Excavations
and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine Quaderni di Gerico (2000),
Volume 2
Edited by
.
>>> New York, you would not get the same ages of the buildings at all. K
>>> K did not examine but a small portion for pottery, and that far away
>>> from other parts she examined.
>> That is a claim Wood made on the basis of a dubious interpretation of
>> her excavation notes. Her fully published record (with pictures of the
>> finds) of the dig refutes this already (I gave you a reference to her
>> book) I also gave you references to other archaeologists who point out
>> that Wood is factually wrong on this, plain and simple. Kenyon's dig, as
>> all her digs, was constrained and based on specific sampling techniques,
>> but apart from Wood (who made it clear he does not care about the facts)
>> everybody believes that the numerous objects she foudn are already
>> sufficient for confident dating.
>>
> You said, "That is a claim Wood made on the basis of a dubious
> interpretation of her excavation notes." No.
> There is nothing "dubious" about what she wrote.
There's indeed nothing dubious about what she wrote. There is everything
dubious with what Wood read into her reports. Which was pointed out by
other professional archaeologists, I gave you already the reference to
Bienkowski and indeed Kenyon's own books which have a full account of
her findings,
He
> is going by what she wrote. She clearly reported all
> that I have told you that she reported, and you have
> been given websites showing what those things are.
And I have given her _her own books_ as reference. now whom do I
believe? A second hand account by religiously driven,non-professionals,
or her own words and that of her fellow professionals?
>> And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
>> considerably more extensive confirmed her findings
>>
> Moot point? The Italians found some things she
> did not find since her work (clearly seen in the URL
> I gave) only covered a small portion of Jericho. The
> Italians further work, simply was in addition to what
> she had already found. They did not refute what she
> had found. They proved there were walls, since they
> dug to find the base of the walls.
Exactly. It is a moot point to criticise Kenyon's conclusion on the
basis that she did not find enough artefacts (as Wood did), since the
Italian dig found more - and confirmed her.
>>> I've given a website that tells
>>> great details about this.
>> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
>> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
>> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
>> conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
>> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
>> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
>> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
>> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
>> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>>
> I'm going to say this again. He did not dismiss
> what things she found that is evidence. No one has
> dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
> in question is her theories that have no evidence.
Her "theories" are based on evidence, and have been confirmed by all
subsequent research _and_modern scientific dating methods.
> She found the layer that was burned that matches
> exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says.
Her theory
> is that they were not there at the same time as
> this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
> that is not a find, but a speculation.
>
The _find_ are the artefacts, the _theory_ is based on that evidence,
using the normal method of archaeology,and ore recently confirmed by
hard science 9carbon dating)_
>> And again, in any case this is moot after the Italian excavation from
>> the late 1990, that was not only much more extensive, but also benefited
>> from the much more refined methods developed partly in response to
>> Kenyons approach, and which are not subject to Wood's criticism
>>
> You are not being accurate. The Italians did not
> overturn what she found. You can't overturn what
> someone finds. They found the base of the walls
> IN ADDITION to the things she found.
> to what she found.
What are you talking about? It is exactly my point that the Italian dig
confirmed, not overturned Kenyon. Wood criticised Kenyon's methodology.
Te Italian dig confirmed Kenyon's finding, and science they use a
different methodology, Wood's criticism does not apply to them even if
you think his criticism of Kenyon is justified (which I don't).
So in summary: Kenyon's finds contradict the bible dates. Wood
criticises Kenyon that her digs are not extensive enough to allow this
conclusion. The Italian dig is more extensive, addresses Wood's
methodological concerns, and _nonetheless_ confirms Kenyon's assessment
that the date is wrong for the bible.
So it is indeed moot to cite Wood and his argument that only few objects
were found by Kenyon, as more objects were found later that confirmed her.
Suzanne
> On Nov 22, 3:26�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:31�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
> > > > > socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
> > > > > revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
> > > > > Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
> > > > > Isabel Rubio, Sergio Mart�nez, UAM Ediciones: Madrid 2008, Vol. II,
> > > > > pp. 379-414.
>
> > > > Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
> > > > agree with these authors.
>
> > > Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
> > > academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported
>
> > Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
> > always have, always will. Many also supported the
> > earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
> > So what else is new? People that ignore what has
> > been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> > what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> > who follow wrong things. But there are many who
> > do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
> > they are claiming.
>
> The "look in the bible to find what the evidence should be" went out
> of archaeology a century ago. �People who do science do _NOT_ decide
> aforehand what the conclusion will be.
>
saying. If you want to have a disagreement with
what the Bible says, then you need to look into
what the Bible says. Quite a few people argue
against what they think the Bible says without
really reading what it says.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:19 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>
> >People that ignore what has
> >been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> >what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> >who follow wrong things.
>
> Now there we have Suzanne's weltanschauung in a nutshell: One
> should look in the Bible to see what your evidence should be. The
> corollary is, of course, if the Bible indicates the evidence
> shouldn't be, then reject the evidence.
>
> And that's why engaging in discussions with Suzanne are
> pointless.
>
> *plonk*
>
Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
Kenyon found at Jericho.
>
The Bible says that A. and B. and C. and D. were left
in Jericho after the fall of Jericho. Along comes
Kathleen Kenyon who unearthed part of the mound of
ancient Jericho. She finds A. and B. and C. and D.
Someone in this thread then who claims that she did
not find what the Bible says, are having an argument
in ignorance, and were not aware of what the Bible
says.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:38 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 22, 7:37�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:19 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 21, 6:31�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
> >> >> > > socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
> >> >> > > revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
> >> >> > > Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
> >> >> > > pp. 379-414.
>
> >> >> > Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
> >> >> > agree with these authors.
>
> >> >> Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
> >> >> academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported
>
> >> >Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
> >> >always have, always will. Many also supported the
> >> >earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
> >> >So what else is new? People that ignore what has
> >> >been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> >> >what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> >> >who follow wrong things. But there are many who
> >> >do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
> >> >they are claiming.
>
> >> So you think that you have to look in the bible and then find evidence
> >> to support it?
>
> >This is one of your lies.
>
> Unlike you I never feel the need to lie.
>
> >I have not looked in the
> >Bible to try to make it fit the evidence.
>
> But you claim above that people should "look in the Bible to see what
> the evidence should be"
>
that if someone is arguing, and they are saying that the
Bible doesn't say anything about what she found, then
they are arguing in ignorance and are not aware of
what the Bible says. Therefore they should look at what
the Bible says before making such a claim.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
> >>>>> Burhard, 1550 B.C. is too late for the Israelites to have been at
> >>>>> Jericho. This is a difference of 105 years.
> >>>> Too early, not to late - we are BC here, so you need to count
> >>>> backwards. And yes, that is _exactly_ the point: The ruins of the
> >>>> wall are simply too old to have been destroyed by the Israelites.
> >>> Yes, I meant early. And no. The walls would not have been built the
> >>> day that the Israelites arrived, they would be much older and built
> >>> long before.
> >> The _destruction_ of the wall is earlier, not (just) �the wall itself.
> >> And you see this, if you actually �read Kenyon's work, by the things that
> >> were found on top of the ruins, and thinks things found in the ruins. .
>
> > No that is not what Kathleen Kenyon said. She said
> > that she saw piles of bricks that were "blackened and
> > reddened by fire" outside the city layer that was
> > burned that had the foodstuffs (grain) still in containers
> > that had not been taken as spoils of war. �
>
> That is a totally confused account of her work. Just try read it in the
> original, I gave you the references.
>
She is the one who said the bricks were blackened
and reddened with fire.
>
> She was
>
> > not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
> > want to go by the Bible,
>
> flatly contradicted by chapter 1 of her book, Excavating the Holy land.
> Of course she knew the bible story, and this was her motivation to dig
> there in the first place.
>
one who said that she wanted to be careful to
not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
may have known the jist of the story, but she
has been criticised by many for not knowing
or even referring to the details given in the
biblical account. Everyone knows about the
Bible story but most of the people in here
arguing with me have not read the details of
the story or even seem to know about them,
or they would not be arguing with me about
such simple things.
>
> � and so by doing that, she
>
> > did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
> > so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
> > not say that the walls were from another time, because
> > she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
> > with fire" bricks as being the walls.
>
> Of _course_ she did. It is right there, in her books.
>
and her conclusion is that the layer of city that the
Israelites arrived at had no walls, and was not
occupied when the Israelites would have gotten
there.
>
> >> For
>
> >>> example, if I went to visit the big, blue Babylon Gate at the museum
> >>> in Germany, and say that I visited it last year, someone could not
> >>> disprove that I was there, by carbon dating it. It would turn out to
> >>> be hundreds and hundreds of years older than the date in which I
> >>> visited it.
> >> I'm unsure what, if any, point you want to make here. If you simply
> >> inspect the gate visually, you can get an idea of how to date it, by
> >> comparing it to already dated works of art. If you then analyse the
> >> building material more closely, you will find lots of incongruencies -
> >> the wood to young etc etc. This is because the Gates is essentially a
> >> rebuild form the 1930, using material from the original dig but also
> >> lots and lots of more recent material to fill the gaps.
>
> > What are you even talking about? Are you now trying
> > to claim that the Babylon Gate is not really the Babylon
> > Gate? That's ridiculous.
>
> The Babylon Gate in the Pergamon Museum is indeed �mainly a
> reconstruction build in 1930 in Berlin, using as much of the old
> material as possible (from the �the excavation of Robert Koldewey)Parts
> of the original gate are all over the world, including the The Istanbul
> Archaeology Museum, the �Detroit Institute of Arts the National Museum
> in Gothenburg, �the Louvre, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, ets
> etc. What you see ion Berlin are mostly replicas, though pretty
> impressive ones.
>
Ishtar Gate was transported in sections from the
actual site in Babylon after the war. It was not
a replica or a rebuilding. It was brought in sections
and then put together again in the original formation.
It was restored in a few places just like an original
painting by an old master is restored, and it is the
orginal gate.
>
> see �King, Leo. The Ishtar Gate. Ceramics Technical; Issue 26; 2008;
> 51-53.
>
the same thing as a rebuilding.
>
> >> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
> >> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
> >> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
> >> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
> >> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
> >> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
> >> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
> >> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>
> > My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself.
>
> You made a hypothetical argument ("If I went etc") , I simply followed
> your scenario and showed why it does not help your case.
>
saying all along that what she found is what the Bible
shows is there. The only thing that I've taken exception
to that she wrote is her belief that the Israelites were
another Semitic group.
>
> He
>
> > is going by what she wrote. She clearly reported all
> > that I have told you that she reported, and you have
> > been given websites showing what those things are.
>
> And I have given her _her own books_ as reference. now whom do I
> believe? A second hand account by religiously driven,non-professionals,
> or her own words and that of her fellow professionals?
>
religiousity driven, non-professionals...etc. I have
shown more than just someone's rhetoric, but have
shown actual photos of the things she found and also
what the Bible says, as well as Albright, Garstang, the
Italians, and Kenyon, herself.
>
> >> And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
> >> considerably more extensive confirmed her findings
>
> > Moot point? The Italians found some things she
> > did not find since her work (clearly seen in the URL
> > I gave) only covered a small portion of Jericho. The
> > Italians further work, simply was in addition to what
> > she had already found. They did not refute what she
> > had found. They proved there were walls, since they
> > dug to find the base of the walls.
>
> Exactly. It is a moot point to criticise Kenyon's conclusion on the
> basis that she did not find enough artefacts (as Wood did), since the
> Italian dig found more - and confirmed her.
>
quoted what she found in the form of evidence.
And here you go again! I did not say that she did
not find "enough" artefacts. I said that in addition
to what she found the Italians found the base of
the walls, and that after her work was done, they
also found the two houses built on a section of
wall, exactly as it says Rahab's house was like in
the biblical account.
>
> >>> I've given a website that tells
> >>> great details about this.
> >> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
> >> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
> >> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
> >> conclusions �from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
> >> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
> >> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
> >> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
> >> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
> >> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>
> > I'm going to say this again. He did not dismiss
> > what things she found that is evidence. No one has
> > dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
> > in question is her theories that have no evidence.
>
> Her "theories" are based on evidence, and have been confirmed by all
> subsequent research _and_modern scientific dating methods.
>
and resubmitted what he had found. Have you not
been reading what I've shown you about how she
did not find much pottery to go on, or that she only
dug in a small portion of the city? She did not
excavate the entire city. Her speaking of this layer
and that layer ("city IV," etc.) only dealt with small
portions of the layer. I showed a website with a
photograph on it showing what part she excavated
and showing the vast amount that she did not
excavate. Modern science confirmed her date, but
only based on when SHE thought the Israelites
would have gotten to Jericho. I've explained this to
you. So you can't really say her date was accurate
if she doesn't have a reasonable date for the
Exodus.
>
> > She found the layer that was burned that matches
> > exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says.
>
> � Her theory> is that they were not there at the same time as
> > this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
> > that is not a find, but a speculation.
>
> The _find_ are the artefacts, the _theory_ is based on that evidence,
> using the normal method of archaeology,and ore recently confirmed by
> hard science 9carbon dating)_
>
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
The point you seem to keep missing is that the bible is wrong in its
claims about the period.
There was no exodus, there was no invasion of that Canaan area, there
were no battles to control and take over. Jericho was an empty ghost
town at the time the bible claims Joshua laid siege to the town. The
Israelites developed out of the Canaanite population some time later.
>>
>Suzanne
The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:21�pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:19 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>>
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >People that ignore what has
>> >been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
>> >what the evidence should be, top the list of people
>> >who follow wrong things.
>>
>> Now there we have Suzanne's weltanschauung in a nutshell: One
>> should look in the Bible to see what your evidence should be. The
>> corollary is, of course, if the Bible indicates the evidence
>> shouldn't be, then reject the evidence.
>>
>> And that's why engaging in discussions with Suzanne are
>> pointless.
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>....>unplonk!!<...
>Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
>what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
>was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
>said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
>Kenyon found at Jericho.
For the last time, no it is not.
>>
>The Bible says that A. and B. and C. and D. were left
>in Jericho after the fall of Jericho. Along comes
>Kathleen Kenyon who unearthed part of the mound of
>ancient Jericho. She finds A. and B. and C. and D.
But she didn't. She found a walled town that had been destroyed by
earthquake and fire long before the biblical story.
>Someone in this thread then who claims that she did
>not find what the Bible says, are having an argument
>in ignorance, and were not aware of what the Bible
>says.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The bible is fiction. It is full of contradictions and stories
plagiarized from other religions/societies.
Burkhard
> On Dec 2, 5:50 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>>>>> Burhard, 1550 B.C. is too late for the Israelites to have been at
>>>>>>> Jericho. This is a difference of 105 years.
>>>>>> Too early, not to late - we are BC here, so you need to count
>>>>>> backwards. And yes, that is _exactly_ the point: The ruins of the
>>>>>> wall are simply too old to have been destroyed by the Israelites.
>>>>> Yes, I meant early. And no. The walls would not have been built the
>>>>> day that the Israelites arrived, they would be much older and built
>>>>> long before.
>>>> The _destruction_ of the wall is earlier, not (just) the wall itself.
>>>> And you see this, if you actually read Kenyon's work, by the things that
>>>> were found on top of the ruins, and thinks things found in the ruins. .
>>> No that is not what Kathleen Kenyon said. She said
>>> that she saw piles of bricks that were "blackened and
>>> reddened by fire" outside the city layer that was
>>> burned that had the foodstuffs (grain) still in containers
>>> that had not been taken as spoils of war.
>> That is a totally confused account of her work. Just try read it in the
>> original, I gave you the references.
>>
> I have this in quotes because I am quoting HER.
> She is the one who said the bricks were blackened
> and reddened with fire.
Indeed, But the part that claims that she did no connect this to the
walls is directly contradicted by her own account.
>> She was
>>
>>> not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
>>> want to go by the Bible,
>> flatly contradicted by chapter 1 of her book, Excavating the Holy land.
>> Of course she knew the bible story, and this was her motivation to dig
>> there in the first place.
>>
> NO! This does NOT contradict her! She is the
> one who said that she wanted to be careful to
> not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
> may have known the jist of the story, but she
> has been criticised by many for not knowing
> or even referring to the details given in the
> biblical account.
And that is a baseless accusation that is totally out of lien with
everything we know about her, and what her own accounts is. Her
knowledge of the bible was as good as it gets. People who make this
claim are flat out lying, as can be )_shown _ simply by reading her own
accounts, and how her bible studies influences her work.
Everyone knows about the
> Bible story but most of the people in here
> arguing with me have not read the details of
> the story or even seem to know about them,
She was the daughter of a pre-eminent Bible scholar, She learned about
the bible from him. This knowledge gave her the idea to dig the holy
land. Her entire work is full of references to the biblical account. the
very idea that her knowledge of the bible story is lacking is utterly
preposterous and indeed slanderous.
> or they would not be arguing with me about
> such simple things.
>> and so by doing that, she
>>
>>> did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
>>> so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
>>> not say that the walls were from another time, because
>>> she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
>>> with fire" bricks as being the walls.
>> Of _course_ she did. It is right there, in her books.
>>
> She said she had not found the walls in one place,
> and her conclusion is that the layer of city that the
> Israelites arrived at had no walls, and was not
> occupied when the Israelites would have gotten
> there.
And your point is? She recognises the blackened bricks as part of the
wall, and , by means of archaeological analysis, concluded it was burned
down long before Joshua- which the later carbon dating confirmed
Well I actually was in Berlin, saw the gate and heard the description of
the guide. And I quoted you the academic literature on this. It is a
reconstruction, using mainly new material. See also Rarc Van De Mieroop:
Reading Babylon. American Journal of Archaeology 2003pp 257-275
The
> Ishtar Gate was transported in sections from the
> actual site in Babylon after the war. It was not
> a replica or a rebuilding. It was brought in sections
> and then put together again in the original formation.
> It was restored in a few places just like an original
> painting by an old master is restored, and it is the
> orginal gate.
It is part of the original gate, with the majority of material being
replicas.
>> see King, Leo. The Ishtar Gate. Ceramics Technical; Issue 26; 2008;
>> 51-53.
>>
> It was the original Ishtar Gate. A restoration is not
> the same thing as a rebuilding.
If the restoration adds more material than the original, this is
debatable. The important thing for my example was that any C14 dating f
the gate as it is woudl be confused, since the majority of the material
is new. of course, once yo know tat history you can account fo r this.
>>>> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
>>>> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
>>>> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
>>>> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
>>>> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
>>>> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
>>>> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
>>>> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>>> My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself.
>> You made a hypothetical argument ("If I went etc") , I simply followed
>> your scenario and showed why it does not help your case.
>>
> I did not make a hypothetical argument.
You wrote: "If I went to the Ishtar gate etc" That is what is commonly
known as a hypothetical argument, unless you really were there (which
you say you didn't)
So now you are claiming the Israelites are not Semitic? That is even
more bizzare than your usual claims.
>> He
>>
>>> is going by what she wrote. She clearly reported all
>>> that I have told you that she reported, and you have
>>> been given websites showing what those things are.
>> And I have given her _her own books_ as reference. now whom do I
>> believe? A second hand account by religiously driven,non-professionals,
>> or her own words and that of her fellow professionals?
>>
> I don't know what you are even talking about, saying
> religiousity driven, non-professionals...etc. I have
> shown more than just someone's rhetoric, but have
> shown actual photos of the things she found and also
> what the Bible says, as well as Albright, Garstang, the
> Italians, and Kenyon, herself.
The Italians and Kenyon _explicitly_ say that their findings contradict
the Bible chronology. Not a single professional archaeologist disputes
this. Their _own_ words make this clear, not the second hand websites
that are all you have cited so far
>>>> And this is a moot poitn anyway, as the Italian dig which was
>>>> considerably more extensive confirmed her findings
>>> Moot point? The Italians found some things she
>>> did not find since her work (clearly seen in the URL
>>> I gave) only covered a small portion of Jericho. The
>>> Italians further work, simply was in addition to what
>>> she had already found. They did not refute what she
>>> had found. They proved there were walls, since they
>>> dug to find the base of the walls.
>> Exactly. It is a moot point to criticise Kenyon's conclusion on the
>> basis that she did not find enough artefacts (as Wood did), since the
>> Italian dig found more - and confirmed her.
>>
> I have not criticized Kenyon's found evidence. I've
> quoted what she found in the form of evidence.
> And here you go again! I did not say that she did
> not find "enough" artefacts.
That is the main criticism Wood makes of her analysis. You linked to
websites that cite approvingly Wood's claim.
I said that in addition
> to what she found the Italians found the base of
> the walls, and that after her work was done, they
> also found the two houses built on a section of
> wall, exactly as it says Rahab's house was like in
> the biblical account.
The Italians make it very clear in their own report, which I cited, that
in their professional opinion, all their findings support Kenyon's
analysis, and the fact that the wall was destroyed before Joshua was
even born. Having read the Italian report (the original, not a second
hand version, I provided you with the reference) , I find not indication
whatsoever that hey discovered anything that could be identified as
Rahab's house. you expect to find houses build against the walls,
something you find pretty much in ever y city of that time in that region.
>>>>> I've given a website that tells
>>>>> great details about this.
>>>> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
>>>> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
>>>> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
>>>> conclusions from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
>>>> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
>>>> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
>>>> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
>>>> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
>>>> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>>> I'm going to say this again. He did not dismiss
>>> what things she found that is evidence. No one has
>>> dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
>>> in question is her theories that have no evidence.
>> Her "theories" are based on evidence, and have been confirmed by all
>> subsequent research _and_modern scientific dating methods.
>>
> Garstang revisited her criticism against his finds,
> and resubmitted what he had found.
Realy? Where?
Have you not
> been reading what I've shown you about how she
> did not find much pottery to go on, or that she only
> dug in a small portion of the city?
Really? Above you claim, and I quote: "I did not say that she did
not find "enough" artefacts." Here you make the same argument of the
insufficiency of her dig again. That is the main claim by Wood's, and
_even if _ you think this is a serious problem, it stopped being one
once the Italian dig found plenty.
She did not
> excavate the entire city. Her speaking of this layer
> and that layer ("city IV," etc.) only dealt with small
> portions of the layer. I showed a website with a
> photograph on it showing what part she excavated
> and showing the vast amount that she did not
> excavate.
Yes, based on sound sampling methodology. Again, you are using Wood's
argument that her dig was to limited (something yo deny above) A) this
is wrong. Sampling, when done on sound statistical methods, means you
don't need to test all of. B) even if it were true, it doesn't matter
because the more extensive finds later fully support her analysis
Modern science confirmed her date, but
> only based on when SHE thought the Israelites
> would have gotten to Jericho.
No, based on the _additional_ material that the Italian excavation
found, and on the C14 dating of both her's and the later finds
I've explained this to
> you. So you can't really say her date was accurate
> if she doesn't have a reasonable date for the
> Exodus.
She does not need a reasonable date of exodus. Her dating was based ona
comparison of the artefacts she found with artefacts whose dates are
known This was later confirmed by both quantitative (Italian dig) and
qualitative (C14 dating) research. The evidence speaks for itself. You
don't need to have any additional information about exodus ot any other
story.
>>> She found the layer that was burned that matches
>>> exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says.
>> Her theory> is that they were not there at the same time as
>>> this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
>>> that is not a find, but a speculation.
>> The _find_ are the artefacts, the _theory_ is based on that evidence,
>> using the normal method of archaeology,and ore recently confirmed by
>> hard science 9carbon dating)_
>>
> This explains the posititions of many archaeoloigsts:
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
> Suzanne
And a lot of hogwash it is. if you can't deal with the evidence, smear
the researchers that provided it. only in this case, you are even more
out of a limp than usual. Kenyon was a committed Christian, as are
Marchetti and Nigro. And the C14 machine used by the Dutch doesn't care
what religion the operator has. What al of these researchers are however
, very unlike the website you cite, is honest and with intellectual
integrity. When their evidence contradicted the bible, they followed the
evidence and said so.
>
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
This was a problem with towns of that period. They burnt easily,
especially following a major earthquake.
>>
>> She was
>>
>> > not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
>> > want to go by the Bible,
>>
>> flatly contradicted by chapter 1 of her book, Excavating the Holy land.
>> Of course she knew the bible story, and this was her motivation to dig
>> there in the first place.
>>
>NO! This does NOT contradict her! She is the
>one who said that she wanted to be careful to
>not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
>may have known the jist of the story,
Hohohoho!
> but she
>has been criticised by many for not knowing
>or even referring to the details given in the
>biblical account.
Why would she refer to a book of bronze age fairy tales. She was an
expert archaeologist, she dug the site and produced her scientific
conclusions. The showed the bible was wrong.
> Everyone knows about the
>Bible story but most of the people in here
>arguing with me have not read the details of
>the story or even seem to know about them,
>or they would not be arguing with me about
>such simple things.
We are arguing with you because you refuse to face reality.
>>
>> � and so by doing that, she
>>
>> > did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
>> > so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
>> > not say that the walls were from another time, because
>> > she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
>> > with fire" bricks as being the walls.
>>
>> Of _course_ she did. It is right there, in her books.
>>
>She said she had not found the walls in one place,
>and her conclusion is that the layer of city that the
>Israelites arrived at had no walls,
Modern thought is that they never arrived. But certainly using
biblical chronology then yes, Jericho did not have walls and was
probably not really inhabited at the claimed time of Joshua.
It is a reconstruction. Parts are life size, others no. Many of the
original panels are in other collections around the world. It is a
very good reconstruction, but that is exactly what it is.
No it isn't.
> The only thing that I've taken exception
>to that she wrote is her belief that the Israelites were
>another Semitic group.
Which. it turns out, came much later.
But that was nothing unusual. Anyone writing during the time the bible
stories were concocted would have known that walled towns would have
living quarters built in.
>>
>> >>> I've given a website that tells
>> >>> great details about this.
>> >> By, as I remember, Wood again. As I said before, he had a methodological
>> >> point after Kenyon's dig_ her method does indeed require very careful
>> >> and selective digging, and on this basis one might hesitate to draw
>> >> conclusions �from the absence of finds. Having said that, the majority
>> >> of experts considered even Kenyon's findings sufficient, and in my
>> >> opinion Wood grossly underestimates the statistical significance of the
>> >> Kenyon-Wheeler methodology. Still, some of his objections were debatable
>> >> - note though that at best, it woudl allowed him to dismiss Kenyon, - he
>> >> does not offer _any_ alternative evidence for the Joshua dating.
>>
>> > I'm going to say this again. He did not dismiss
>> > what things she found that is evidence. No one has
>> > dismissed what evidence she has found. What is
>> > in question is her theories that have no evidence.
>>
>> Her "theories" are based on evidence, and have been confirmed by all
>> subsequent research _and_modern scientific dating methods.
>>
>Garstang revisited her criticism against his finds,
>and resubmitted what he had found. Have you not
>been reading what I've shown you about how she
>did not find much pottery to go on, or that she only
>dug in a small portion of the city? She did not
>excavate the entire city.
Of course not, she would never have been allowed to.
> Her speaking of this layer
>and that layer ("city IV," etc.)
Meaning it was fourth. Jericho was built and destroyed several times.
>only dealt with small
>portions of the layer. I showed a website with a
>photograph on it showing what part she excavated
>and showing the vast amount that she did not
>excavate. Modern science confirmed her date, but
>only based on when SHE thought the Israelites
>would have gotten to Jericho.
No, she used scientific dating methods, and later dating has confirmed
her findings.
>I've explained this to
>you.
But we don't accept your explanation.
>So you can't really say her date was accurate
>if she doesn't have a reasonable date for the
>Exodus.
What part of "there was no exodus" is going over your head?
>>
>> > She found the layer that was burned that matches
>> > exactly EXACTLY what the Bible says.
>>
>> � Her theory> is that they were not there at the same time as
>> > this layer of city was destroyed. Her theory about
>> > that is not a find, but a speculation.
>>
>> The _find_ are the artefacts, the _theory_ is based on that evidence,
>> using the normal method of archaeology,and ore recently confirmed by
>> hard science 9carbon dating)_
>>
>This explains the posititions of many archaeoloigsts:
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
Only those stupid enough to base their archaeology on the bible story.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Look in the bible to see what I will find" (loose translation of your
post) Is EXACTLY what you said. Scientists do not use the bible as a
reference source.
Harry K
Mike Painter
> NO! This does NOT contradict her! She is the
> one who said that she wanted to be careful to
> not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
> may have known the jist of the story, but she
> has been criticised by many for not knowing
> or even referring to the details given in the
> biblical account. Everyone knows about the
> Bible story but most of the people in here
> arguing with me have not read the details of
> the story or even seem to know about them,
> or they would not be arguing with me about
> such simple things.
Until about 50 years ago much of the work in archeology was done with the
idea that the bible was essentially correct in how it recorded history.
Since then people have been doing archeology in the area the same way they
do it anyplace else on earth. The results have pretty much shown that those
stories were written hundreds of years after the time period and reflect the
time it was written, much the way a movie dresses people in styles that
represent modern times.
Following the practices that demand you ignore any evidence that does not
support the bible view is not science no matter how you look at it.
If fundamental Christians today were sent 100 years into the past they would
be accused of being raving liberals.
Mike Painter
>>
>>> The "look in the bible to find what the evidence should be" went out
>>> of archaeology a century ago. People who do science do _NOT_ decide
>>> aforehand what the conclusion will be.
>>
>> Harry, what you just wrote is not at all what I was
>> saying. If you want to have a disagreement with
>> what the Bible says, then you need to look into
>> what the Bible says. Quite a few people argue
>> against what they think the Bible says without
>> really reading what it says.
>>
>> Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "Look in the bible to see what I will find" (loose translation of your
> post) Is EXACTLY what you said. Scientists do not use the bible as a
> reference source.
And when you do look in th bible and see *exactly* what it says, Suzanne
willl tell you it does not mean exactly that if she does not like it.
Matthew 7:7-11 is pretty spercific about what will happen if you ask Jesus
for something. It sasy you will get what you ask for with no tricks.
Suzanne says gods answer is always yes, no, or wait. (and I'll bet a nickel
that her church preached ask and recieve on a regular basis.)
Mike Painter
> ....>unplonk!!<...
Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
> what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
> was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
> said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
> Kenyon found at Jericho.
You have been saying that.
We all understand that you have been saying that.
What we have pointed out every rtime you have said that is that
KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT.
Nor does anyone who has actually studied the area.
Harry K
Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
grain, foundations of a wall, all are mentioned in the bible, ergo it
matches. All while somehow ignoring the facts that show what she
found happened some centuries before the bible claimed.
I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
backs up the bible. A creatidiot has a shield that prevents any and
all awkward facts from penetrating.
Harry K
Mike Painter
again.
The first time I ran across her she was quoting somebody else about this
same subject.
She made the mistake of posting the URL, so I read it and quoted what the
author said.
She still did not back down.
She really should read "The Bible Unearthed" as the first part of most
sections explains the story as it is related in the bible. She could quote
this and ignore the rest where it is shown that it did not happen that way.
Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:31�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > after her birth,The formative years of a female archaeologist: From
> > > > > socio-politics to the stratigraphical method and the radiocarbon
> > > > > revolution in archaeology, in Proceedings of the 5th International
> > > > > Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April
> > > > > pp. 379-414.
>
> > > > Burkhard, you can also find things that do not
> > > > agree with these authors.
>
> > > Things? What are they? Other opinions? What evidence do they have? The
> > > academci consensus seems clear, and extremely well suported
>
> > Yep. quite a few people adhere to this kind of stuff,
> > always have, always will. Many also supported the
> > earlier things that were shown to be wrong, too.
> > So what else is new? People that ignore what has
> > been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> > what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> > who follow wrong things. But there are many who
> > do not agree with this and see a travesty in what
> > they are claiming.
>
> The "look in the bible to find what the evidence should be" went out
> of archaeology a century ago. �People who do science do _NOT_ decide
> aforehand what the conclusion will be.
>
being made here about what I originally had said, and usually one
might be able to trace it back to a certain fellow in this
newsgroup...
who spoke as though I had looked in the Bible, in order to make the
evidence fit what was in the Bible. That is misleading. I was not
saying that someone should look in the Bible
in order to make the things found fit
what the Bible said, I said that they
should look in the Bible so that they
can see what the Bible already said
would be under the dirt in the mound
of Jericho before the things were
unearthed. In other words, if the Bible
says that at Jericho there is a set of
purple scissors and green shovels,
and then an archaeologist says that
they dug and found a set of purple
scissors and some green shovels,
then someone could not say that no
one found what the Bible claims should
be there, unless they look in the Bible
to see what the Bible claims the evidence would provide. But I did not
say that someone should look in the Bible in order to make what is in
the Bible fit what they found, as some seem to have assumed, since
they only see a portion of what had originally been said.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:33:20 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 26, 4:37�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Suzanne wrote:
> >> > On Nov 21, 6:31 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> On 19 Nov, 21:46, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> years after her birth,The formative years of a female
> >> >>>> archaeologist: From socio-politics to the stratigraphical
> >> >>>> method and the radiocarbon revolution in archaeology, in
> >> >>>> Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the
> >> >>>> Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006,
>
> Of course only small parts of the actual wooden gates survived but the
> reconstruction is very impressive.
>
> >> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
> >> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
> >> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
> >> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
> >> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
> >> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
> >> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
> >> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
>
> >My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself. Some
> >that are in my family saw it though, and it can be
> >viewed online here as well. This is the 3,000 year
> >old Ishtar Gate from Babylon, brought to Germany
> >after the war. It is preserved and in the Pergamon
> >Museum.
> >www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/babylon.html
>
> No, it is reconstructed. Some material is original but as many of the
> original relief's are in other museums around the world....
>
> You can see the sides of the passageway reconstructing the street of
>
> But what, when all said and done, has the Ishtar Gate to do with
> Jericho?
>
see a halo shining over your head. : )
>
According to what you are saying, there would not
be much left at all of the entire gate, which is not
the case. The Gate of Ishtar is the entire thing,
especially the archway, itself. Photos were in the
newspaper when it was dismantled and carefully
put back in the same order in which it had been
found in Iraq, after the war. There were some parts
of it that were damaged and I would call that a
restoration, rather than a reconstruction due to the
fact that every possible effort has been made by
the museum to conserve what was originally built
in Babylon. The Museum's efforts have only been
those of rescue and restoration, and the intention
was not to rebuild it, but preserve it.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:34:52 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
been overturned and found to be wrong
when someone would say "The Bible has to be the one
that is wrong," that a person can be reasonably sure
that the people making the claim against the Bible are
the ones that will eventually be shown to be wrong.
>
> There was no exodus, there was no invasion of that Canaan area, there
> were no battles to control and take over. Jericho was an empty ghost
> town at the time the bible claims Joshua laid siege to the town. The
> Israelites developed out of the Canaanite population some time later.
>
>
> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>
the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
you are denying to believe your claims. You should
seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
>
Suzanne
Andre Lieven
In a word, Bullshit. Please explain the total lack of any global flood
evidence, including the continued existance of civilisations that
lived
right through when it was supposed to have happened, while 100%
dry.
> > There was no exodus, there was no invasion of that Canaan area, there
> > were no battles to control and take over. Jericho was an empty ghost
> > town at the time the bible claims Joshua laid siege to the town. The
> > Israelites developed out of the Canaanite population some time later.
>
> Get real.
No rebuttal to his facts even attempted ? Excellent, his factual
points
stand, and your insane batshit futile lunacy further highlighted.
> > The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
> > shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
> > bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>
> I hope that with this announcement you won't get
> the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
> sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
> Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
> you are denying to believe your claims. You should
> seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
Yep, you're still cracker insane. Not to mention <Projecting>
Andre
Suzanne
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:14:30 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 23, 1:21�pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:26:19 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
>
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >People that ignore what has
> >> >been found that refuse to look in the Bible to see
> >> >what the evidence should be, top the list of people
> >> >who follow wrong things.
>
> >> Now there we have Suzanne's weltanschauung in a nutshell: One
> >> should look in the Bible to see what your evidence should be. The
> >> corollary is, of course, if the Bible indicates the evidence
> >> shouldn't be, then reject the evidence.
>
> >> And that's why engaging in discussions with Suzanne are
> >> pointless.
>
> >> *plonk*
>
> >....>unplonk!!<...
> >Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
> >what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
> >was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
> >said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
> >Kenyon found at Jericho.
>
> For the last time, no it is not.
>
would be there, BEFORE it was even
unearthed.
>
> >The Bible says that A. and B. and C. and D. were left
> >in Jericho after the fall of Jericho. Along comes
> >Kathleen Kenyon who unearthed part of the mound of
> >ancient Jericho. She finds A. and B. and C. and D.
>
> But she didn't. She found a walled town that had been destroyed by
> earthquake and fire long before the biblical story.
>
the whole mound of the tel of ancient Jericho...or
didn't you know? You have said things that are
now contradicting other things that you have said.
You've claimed there were no walls, etc. Now you
are saying there were walls.
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
That is a picture of what was found:
http://tinyurl.com/ycxdm99
Of this, a considerable part (especially the lions and dragons) ended
up at museums all over the world.
Around 40% of the original excavation ended up in Berlin, where they
replaced the missing 60% or so with replicas build on the original
find and other contemporary or near contemporary descriptions and
pictures to get this:
to get this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ishtar_Gate_at_Berlin_Museum.jpg
Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? In the 1930, conservation
science was much more into restoration/replication than modern
conservationist are , who emphasise preservation over restoration.
anyhow, around 60% of the Gate in Berlin are "modern".
for a contemporary assessment see
FT Schipper : The Protection and Preservation of Iraq's Archaeological
Heritage, Spring 1991-2003
American Journal of Archaeology, 2005
Ye Old One
If the choice is between the repeatable scientific dating, and
biblical dating, then the scientific one wins hands down.
>>
>> There was no exodus, there was no invasion of that Canaan area, there
>> were no battles to control and take over. Jericho was an empty ghost
>> town at the time the bible claims Joshua laid siege to the town. The
>> Israelites developed out of the Canaanite population some time later.
>>
>Get real.
I am. If only the same could be said for you.
>>
>> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
>> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
>> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>>
>I hope that with this announcement you won't get
>the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
>sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
>Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
>you are denying to believe your claims. You should
>seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
I do. I also stay out of the religious ones because they are always
wrong. What I do is look at the scientific sites, the ones where the
real information is to be found. And guess what/ It always disagrees
with you - no matter what you talk about.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ok.
Your bible says that the walls came tumbling down as a result of a
supernatural act, and accepted (by bible experts) bible chronology
dates that fairly closely to a specific period of time (say +/- 20
years.
Now archaeology and modern dating says that the walls fell, as a
result of a natural disaster around 150 years earlier. It also says
that at the time the biblical events are claimed to have occurred
there was no major habitation at Jericho. It further says that there
is no evidence whatsoever for an invasion of the area from outside.
You have to begin wondering if your bible is telling the truth or
whether it is glossing up an old event, an earthquake destroying the
town, and claiming it was their god's handiwork.
So far you could claim that both dates are out, both in directions
that would bring the two versions of the events closer together -
maybe even close enough to allow doubt to creep in. But you have one
more BIG problem. Modern studies show that the people who became known
as the Israelites were not outside invaders being led to a "promised
land" from Egypt. There were indigenous people of the Canaanite area
that developed a new religion and culture and evolved out of the local
population some 200 years after the bible claims the invasion. So we
now have over twice as long between the real events of Jericho and the
earliest Israelites.
Ye Old One
So what?
>>
>> >The Bible says that A. and B. and C. and D. were left
>> >in Jericho after the fall of Jericho. Along comes
>> >Kathleen Kenyon who unearthed part of the mound of
>> >ancient Jericho. She finds A. and B. and C. and D.
>>
>> But she didn't. She found a walled town that had been destroyed by
>> earthquake and fire long before the biblical story.
>>
>Earthquakes don't just strike one layer.
They strike at one point in time.
> They strike
>the whole mound of the tel of ancient Jericho...or
>didn't you know?
I do know very well how earthquakes work.
>You have said things that are
>now contradicting other things that you have said.
Nope. You are misreading.
>You've claimed there were no walls, etc. Now you
>are saying there were walls.
There were no walls at the time the bible claims. There was no town
then.
Ye Old One
And I see you are going to be totally dishonest as usual and fail to
answer.
>>
>According to what you are saying, there would not
>be much left at all of the entire gate,
Of the gate itself, as far as I know there was nothing.
Of the gateway? Well, when it was discovered there was a fair bit, but
that is now spread around the world's museums.
>which is not
>the case. The Gate of Ishtar is the entire thing,
>especially the archway, itself. Photos were in the
>newspaper when it was dismantled and carefully
>put back in the same order in which it had been
>found in Iraq, after the war. There were some parts
>of it that were damaged and I would call that a
>restoration, rather than a reconstruction due to the
>fact that every possible effort has been made by
>the museum to conserve what was originally built
>in Babylon. The Museum's efforts have only been
>those of rescue and restoration, and the intention
>was not to rebuild it, but preserve it.
You, yourself, liked to photos that showed the original site. You can
see that little remained when you compare it to the photos of the
reconstruction in the German museum.
>>
>Suzanne
Suzanne
some of the time...after all she was there a very
long time. I will accept what you are saying and
thank you for it.
>
> >> She was
>
> >>> not sure that they were the walls. She said she did not
> >>> want to go by the Bible,
> >> flatly contradicted by chapter 1 of her book, Excavating the Holy land.
> >> Of course she knew the bible story, and this was her motivation to dig
> >> there in the first place.
>
> > NO! This does NOT contradict her! She is the
> > one who said that she wanted to be careful to
> > not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
> > may have known the jist of the story, but she
> > has been criticised by many for not knowing
> > or even referring to the details given in the
> > biblical account.
>
> And that is a baseless accusation that is totally out of lien with
> everything we know about her, and what her own accounts is. Her
> knowledge of the bible was as good as it gets. People who make this
> claim are flat out lying, as can be )_shown _ simply by reading her own
> accounts, and how her bible studies influences her work.
>
that she did not have knowledge of the Bible. What
I said was what she had said, that she did not want
to go by what the Bible said, but wanted to go purely
by what she found, which she did say herself and
did do, but in so doing, people have pointed out that
she seems to have missed some details. These are
not "accusations" against her personally, they are
things people have noticed about her own statements.
>
> Everyone knows about the
>
> > Bible story but most of the people in here
> > arguing with me have not read the details of
> > the story or even seem to know about them,
>
> She was the daughter of a pre-eminent Bible scholar, She learned �about
> the bible from him. This knowledge gave her the idea to dig the holy
> land. Her entire work is full of references to the biblical account. the
> very idea that her knowledge of the bible story is lacking is utterly
> preposterous and indeed slanderous.
>
assassination just because people have found
some things they believe she missed. That's
what critiques are all about, getting at the truth.>
The most educated scholar in the world can
be capable of not noticing something.
>
> > or they would not be arguing with me about
> > such simple things.
> >> � and so by doing that, she
>
> >>> did not recognize that the bricks formed the ramparts
> >>> so that soldiers could enter the city easily. She did
> >>> not say that the walls were from another time, because
> >>> she did not recognize the "reddened and blackened
> >>> with fire" bricks as being the walls.
> >> Of _course_ she did. It is right there, in her books.
>
> > She said she had not found the walls in one place,
> > and her conclusion is that the layer of city that the
> > Israelites arrived at had no walls, and was not
> > occupied when the Israelites would have gotten
> > there.
>
> And your point is? �She recognises the blackened bricks as part of the
> wall, and , by means of archaeological analysis, concluded it was burned
> down long before Joshua- which the later carbon dating confirmed
>
provided a website showing her being quoted, if
you read it. : )
it was restored, and moved from Iraq, when you
said it was reconstructed, I think you used the term
built, and the connotation of that bothered me. I was
wanting to convey that it was the actual gate that
they took from Iraq by dismantling it and then that
they put back together, the authentic Ishtar Gate,
which they then did some repair, as in "restore" to
it, rather than that it was just a replica. (By "gate"
I mean the archway and not the wooden gates).
>
> The
>
> > Ishtar Gate was transported in sections from the
> > actual site in Babylon after the war. It was not
> > a replica or a rebuilding. It was brought in sections
> > and then put together again in the original formation.
> > It was restored in a few places just like an original
> > painting by an old master is restored, and it is the
> > orginal gate.
>
> It is part of the �original gate, with the majority of material being
> replicas.
>
> >> see �King, Leo. The Ishtar Gate. Ceramics Technical; Issue 26; 2008;
> >> 51-53.
>
> > It was the original Ishtar Gate. A restoration is not
> > the same thing as a rebuilding.
>
> If the restoration adds more material than the original, this is
> debatable. The important thing for my example was that any C14 dating f
> the gate as it is woudl be confused, since the majority of the material
> is new. of course, once yo know tat history you can account fo r this.
>
this. I certainly can't fault you for wanting to
be accurate, but the way your information
sounds, one would get the impression that
they did not bring back the real Ishtar Gate,
except maybe two bricks of it and then built
a replica around it, rather than that they
rescued and restored it. This just conveys
a different picture.
>
> >>>> None of this of course tell says anything about your visits. But if you
> >>>> during your visits dropped a chocolate wrapper in it, and this then is
> >>>> found, we can say with a certain degree of certainty in which period the
> >>>> visitation took place (not before that chocolate bar was produced, and
> >>>> probably not long after its production stopped)If the gate is destroyed
> >>>> by fire, and a packet of matches is found, we can again date that
> >>>> destruction by dating the matches: when produced , where etc - as any
> >>>> criminalist would do in a crime scene investigation.
> >>> My visits? I didn't say that I saw this, myself.
> >> You made a hypothetical argument ("If I went etc") , I simply followed
> >> your scenario and showed why it does not help your case.
>
> > I did not make a hypothetical argument.
> You wrote: "If I went to the Ishtar gate etc" That is what is commonly
>
> known as a hypothetical argument, unless you really were there (which
> you say you didn't)
>
in gold and held by my heel. For you to even bring
all this up, I believe causes it to appear that you are looking for
someone's vulnerablity in order to
exploit it so that no one will pay attention to my
original reason for mentioning it in the first place.
Fortunately, this might be a wee bit transparent
to some readers.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
each other. You say that something is a loose translation of my post,
and then you say that it is exactly what I
said. A "loose translation" is not an
accurate quote, so it is not exactly
what someone says.
>
I had said that Kathleen Kenyon found the exact evidence at Jericho
that the Bible writer had written in detail. There
is absolutely nothing unclear about that. Yet someone claimed that
they did not find the evidence. I then said that someone would
actually have to look in the Bible (with their eyes) in
order to see the evidence. What she
found is definitely in the Bible after all,
in spite of someone's claiming that she
did not find what the Bible shows was
in the tell of ancient Jericho. I also
listed all those things, lest there should be any doubt as to what I
was saying.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Christian.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
You get an awful lot of mileage out of your manufactured and imagined
ideas.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Was your ironic comment intentional?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 2, 9:21�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm not sure of that, Christianity goes through cycles and the
reactionaries were not on top a century ago.
>What we are seeing here today though is liberals trying to rave at a
>Christian.
We laugh at the foolish claims that people make when they have no
evidence and no knowledge to support their claims.
You need to stop worshipping the error-filled Bible.
Suzanne
someone could see her being quoted.
However, some of you have not given a website backing up what you are
saying that she said.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Dec 2, 6:50�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Suzanne wrote:
> > > ....>unplonk!!<...
>
> > Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
>
> > > Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
> > > what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
> > > was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
> > > said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
> > > Kenyon found at Jericho.
>
> > You have been saying that.
> > We all understand that you have been saying that.
> > What we have pointed out every rtime you have said that is that
> > KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT.
> > Nor does anyone who has actually studied the area.
>
> Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
> grain, foundations of a wall, all �are mentioned in the bible, ergo it
>
This is not create-idiot logic. It's real logic. She did find the
bricks "blackened and reddened with fire" (her words already affirmed
by a URL), not just "some" grain but the fresh harvest still in the
containers,
confirming when the grain was harvested, a portion of the wall with
two houses actually built on it as the Bible tells Rahab's house was,
the
base of the walls themselves, countering claims that there were no
walls, which was used to attack the Bible with earlier, before the
base of the walls were found, the bricks forming ramparts upon which
the soldiers could have ready access into the city, the city layer
being burned with fire, exactly as the Bible says that it was.
>
> All while somehow ignoring the facts > that show what she
> found happened some centuries
> before the bible claimed.
>
been, and not on the layer of city in which the above things were
found. So what you are saying that has been ignored was not ignored
but seen for what it was.
>
> I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
>
Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail. If
someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
it.
>
> A creatidiot has a shield that
> prevents any and
> all awkward facts from penetrating.
>
will see as being a rock of offense. Only trouble is, the cornerstone,
is really the cornerstone.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
So you may think, but it did happen
the way that the Bible said, in spite of the way that the book you
quote said.
>
Suzanne.
Mike Painter
>>
>> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
>> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
>> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>>
> I hope that with this announcement you won't get
> the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
> sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
> Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
> you are denying to believe your claims. You should
> seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
>>
You should read something other than the bible.
Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of what you
believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
tell us that it did happen.
Mike Painter
>> Until about 50 years ago much of the work in archeology was done
>> with the idea that the bible was essentially correct in how it
>> recorded history. Since then people have been doing archeology in
>> the area the same way they do it anyplace else on earth. The results
>> have pretty much shown that those stories were written hundreds of
>> years after the time period and reflect the time it was written,
>> much the way a movie dresses people in styles that represent modern
>> times.
>> Following the practices that demand you ignore any evidence that
>> does not support the bible view is not science no matter how you
>> look at it.
>>
>> If fundamental Christians today were sent 100 years into the past
>> they would be accused of being raving liberals.
>>
> What we are seeing here today though is liberals trying to rave at a
> Christian.
What we are seeing here is a shrinking band of fundamental Christians making
their last stand.
They don't have the intelligence or the education to realize that *they*
would be called liberal by fundamentalists in the past. You probably don;t
even believe a person should die for stealing an apple, but that's the way
the law used to read and it was based on the bible.
Mike Painter
>>> "Look in the bible to see what I will find" (loose translation of
>>> your post) Is EXACTLY what you said. Scientists do not use the
>>> bible as a reference source.
>>
>> And when you do look in th bible and see *exactly* what it says,
>> Suzanne
>> willl tell you it does not mean exactly that if she does not like it.
>> Matthew 7:7-11 is pretty spercific about what will happen if you ask
>> Jesus
>> for something. It sasy you will get what you ask for with no tricks.
>> Suzanne says gods answer is always yes, no, or wait. (and I'll bet a
>> nickel
>> that her church preached ask and recieve on a regular basis.)- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
> You get an awful lot of mileage out of your manufactured and imagined
> ideas.
>>
Suzanne says god says yes, no, or wait.
Jesus Christ said:
7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto you:
7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to
him that knocketh it shall be opened.
7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him
a stone?
7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them
that ask him?
It is manufactured and made up but I didn't do it.
Mike Painter
I did, you were wrong and I quoted and posted the reference from the link
you gave.
All of us don't have to post such things.
Hatunen
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Dec 3, 10:51�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 3:58�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> According to what you are saying, there would not
>> be much left at all of the entire gate, which is not
>> the case. The Gate of Ishtar is the entire thing,
>> especially the archway, itself. Photos were in the
>> newspaper when it was dismantled and carefully
>> put back in the same order in which it had been
>> found in Iraq, after the war. There were some parts
>> of it that were damaged and I would call that a
>> restoration, rather than a reconstruction due to the
>> fact that every possible effort has been made by
>> the museum to conserve what was originally built
>> in Babylon. The Museum's efforts have only been
>> those of rescue and restoration, and the intention
>> was not to rebuild it, but preserve it.
>>
>That is a picture of what was found:
>http://tinyurl.com/ycxdm99
>Of this, a considerable part (especially the lions and dragons) ended
>up at museums all over the world.
>
>Around 40% of the original excavation ended up in Berlin, where they
>replaced the missing 60% or so with replicas build on the original
>find and other contemporary or near contemporary descriptions and
>pictures to get this:
>to get this:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ishtar_Gate_at_Berlin_Museum.jpg
>
>Quite a difference, wouldn't you say? In the 1930, conservation
>science was much more into restoration/replication than modern
>conservationist are , who emphasise preservation over restoration.
>anyhow, around 60% of the Gate in Berlin are "modern".
>
>for a contemporary assessment see
>FT Schipper : The Protection and Preservation of Iraq's Archaeological
>Heritage, Spring 1991-2003
> American Journal of Archaeology, 2005
I think Suzanne needs to visit the Pergamom Museum where all this
is explained in the exhibits and brochures. It's worth it just to
see the Pergamom.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Mike Painter
>>
> Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
> writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail. If
> someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
> given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
> found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
> Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
> it.
early 1930's, told you the author claimed to have written it and that the
writer said he lived in Rohnert Park at the time.
The main character of the story was a man who rode a bicycle from Mill
Valley to Santa Rosa on a regular basis (about 45 miles one way)
You might accept some or all of it. An educated person would know that some
or all of the story was false.
It was not written in the 30's because Rohnert Park did not exist then. It
had to have been written no earlier than when the city was proposed which
was in the late 1950's and it did not actually become a town until 1962.
History might or might not be able to tell if the bike rider was real or if
he made such trips.
(Which, according to the story he did in order to work with Luthor Burbank.
Burbank lived, my cousins grandfather lived at the same time and the gardens
surrounding his huge home on a hill in Mill Valley was surrounded by
carefully tended woods and gardens)
That type of problem happens over and over again in the bible and is just
one of the reason why archeology today says the bible is mostly fiction.
Mike Painter
>>
>> Nah, she'll find somebody else to quote wrong and never mention
>> Kenyon again.
>> The first time I ran across her she was quoting somebody else about
>> this same subject.
>> She made the mistake of posting the URL, so I read it and quoted
>> what the author said.
>> She still did not back down.
>> She really should read "The Bible Unearthed" as the first part of
>> most sections explains the story as it is related in the bible. She
>> could quote this and ignore the rest where it is shown that it did
>> not happen that way.->
> So you may think, but it did happen
> the way that the Bible said, in spite of the way that the book you
> quote said.
It is wht I think and it is based on what the book you are afraid to read
says as well as what the people you quote say.
Only you say they are wrong.
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will repeat what you are trying to ignore. Dig in any mound from
ancient history in that area and you will find the exact same type of
artifacts. The artifacts do not confirm the bible, in fact they
confirm that the bible was wrong.
It is pure amazing how you can ignore evidence that has been pointed
out to you time and again. Try _reading_ Kenyon and you will see that
she SAYS it does not match the bible.
Harry K
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
NO, we are trying to penetrate the stupidity of one very rabid
fundamentalist. So much of one that I wouldn't even call you a
Christian. Christians worship God, you worship a book.
Harry K
Harry K
Why to you lie and distort what was said. Noone has said she did not
find those things. It has been explained to you ad nauseum exaclty
_why_ they do not match the bible and that Kenyon and others after her
have _shown_ they do not match.
That a charred brick, part of a house and some grain were found is
unremarkable. What _would_ be a surprise would be _not_ finding such
things in a dig in that (or most other) areas.
Harry K
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
So I locate an undug mound somewhere and predict I will find burned
bricks, part of a house, foundation of a wall, some grain....Wow, what
a surprise when I find such.
Harry K
Burkhard
> On Dec 3, 9:33 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 6:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Suzanne wrote:
>>>> ....>unplonk!!<...
>>> Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
>>>> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand what I
>>>> had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist was supposed
>>>> to find should fit what is in the Bible, I said that what was
>>>> in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen Kenyon found at Jericho.
>>> You have been saying that. We all understand that you have been
>>> saying that. What we have pointed out every rtime you have said
>>> that is that KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT. Nor does anyone who has
>>> actually studied the area.
>> Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
>> grain, foundations of a wall, all are mentioned in the bible, ergo
>> it matches.
>>
> This is not create-idiot logic. It's real logic. She did find the
> bricks "blackened and reddened with fire" (her words already affirmed
> by a URL), not just "some" grain but the fresh harvest still in the
> containers, confirming when the grain was harvested, a portion of the
> wall with two houses actually built on it as the Bible tells Rahab's
> house was, the base of the walls themselves, countering claims that
> there were no walls, which was used to attack the Bible with earlier,
>
issue is their dating
before the
> base of the walls were found, the bricks forming ramparts upon which
> the soldiers could have ready access into the city, the city layer
> being burned with fire, exactly as the Bible says that it was.
>> All while somehow ignoring the facts > that show what she found
>> happened some centuries before the bible claimed.
>>
> This is based on what she thought the timing of the Exodus would have
> been, and not on the layer of city in which the above things were
> found.
Most emphatically no. Her dating has absolutely nothing to do with any
theories about exodus. it is based solely in the stratigraphic analysis
of the dig, and the dating of the artefacts (later _confirmed_ by C14
testing)See her
So what you are saying that has been ignored was not ignored
> but seen for what it was.
>> I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
>> backs up the bible.
>>
> Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
> writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail.
> If someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
> given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
> found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
> Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
> it.
Only if what he Bible describes is unique enough. Walls destroyed by
fire, are not. In fact, at Jericho you find destroyed fortification
_below_ the wall in question that are even older. Equally, grains are
exactly what we find in many ruins - they are often the basis for C14
testing.
An analogy to forensic science: Blood was found on the crime scene, and
you are arguing that therefore the suspect is guilty, because he too has
blood. Obviously flawed, as it does not single him out from other
possible contenders.
Same here. We expect walls, signs of fire, grains etc irrespective of
whether it was Joshua, an earlier invasion probably by the Hyksos, or an
earthquake. It is too general to discriminate between alternative
theories. But what is not general are the dates for the artefacts that
have been found, based on both traditional analysis using teh methods of
comparative art history by Kenyon, and modern scientific methods by the
Dutch team in the 1990s. And what makes things worse, the dating of the
layer _above_
also contradicts the idea of a destruction by Joshua as it shows
settlement in the ruins by the Israelites
Now, if the trumpets had been found, that would be another story. Not
quite as good as evidence, but somehow better would have been a find of
the skeletons of children, woman and animals with clear swordmarks on
their bones ("They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the
sword every living thing in it�men and women, young and old, cattle,
sheep and donkeys.)Which makes me wonder why a Christian would _want_
that story to be historically accurate, as it shows god as as brutal
tyrant bent on genocide.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, of that we can de very sure.
There was no supernatural event that destroyed Jericho. It was
destroyed by an earthquake about 150 years before the bible claims.
> in spite of the way that the book you
>quote said.
>>
>Suzanne.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 3, 9:33�am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 6:50�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Suzanne wrote:
>> > > ....>unplonk!!<...
>>
>> > Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
>>
>> > > Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
>> > > what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
>> > > was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
>> > > said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
>> > > Kenyon found at Jericho.
>>
>> > You have been saying that.
>> > We all understand that you have been saying that.
>> > What we have pointed out every rtime you have said that is that
>> > KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT.
>> > Nor does anyone who has actually studied the area.
>>
>> Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
>> grain, foundations of a wall, all �are mentioned in the bible, ergo it
>> matches. �
>>
>This is not create-idiot logic. It's real logic. She did find the
>bricks "blackened and reddened with fire"
But around 150 years too early to match the bible.
>(her words already affirmed
>by a URL), not just "some" grain but the fresh harvest still in the
>containers,
Where is your evidence for that?
>confirming when the grain was harvested, a portion of the wall with
>two houses actually built on it as the Bible tells Rahab's house was,
>the
>base of the walls themselves,
A common structure for that time.
> countering claims that there were no
>walls, which was used to attack the Bible with earlier,
There were no walls at the time the fictional character Joshua is
claimed to have brought them down by magic.
> before the
>base of the walls were found, the bricks forming ramparts upon which
>the soldiers could have ready access into the city, the city layer
>being burned with fire, exactly as the Bible says that it was.
But around 150 years too early to match the bible story.
>>
>> All while somehow ignoring the facts > that show what she
>> found happened some centuries
>> before the bible claimed.
>>
>This is based on what she thought the timing of the Exodus would have
>been,
There was no exodus.
>and not on the layer of city in which the above things were
>found. So what you are saying that has been ignored was not ignored
>but seen for what it was.
If true then you would need to explain why all dating since confirms
her dates?
>>
>> I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
>> backs up the bible. �
>>
>Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
>writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail. If
>someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
>given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
>found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
>Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
>it.
>>
>> A creatidiot has a shield that
>> prevents any and
>> all awkward facts from penetrating.
>>
>What one person sees as being the actual cornerstone, someone else
>will see as being a rock of offense. Only trouble is, the cornerstone,
>is really the cornerstone.
>>
>Suzanne
Ok. Let me try to get something over to you once more.
Last year, while on holiday, I visited an old industrial site that in
the late 1800s was destroyed by fire.There has been no attempt to
rebuild on site as a new building was erected just a quarter of a mile
away.
On site you can still see large sections of wall, some of the internal
structure and even some of the wooden beams.
Now. I, for whatever reason, write a story that uses this
building/ruin to tell a story of heroic daring does. I claim that the
building was the home of an evil wizard and that a good fairy helped
the hero destroy the building.
Time passes, the building falls into more disrepair until the National
Trust elect to abandon it to nature as it is no longer safe for
visitors to walk round.
More time passes. The building is totally covered. My story is a hit
with kids and even though I have long been forgotten as its author,
and the story has been further embellished over the years, it goes on
being told.
Now, 3,500 years after the destruction of the building by fire,
archaeologists uncover it and date it. The dating puts its destruction
at 1860 +/- 10 years. My story says the building was destroyed in 2009
by supernatural forces.
Some gullible people of the year 5509 say "But the story gets all the
details right, it must be correct. Wizards and fairies DID exist in
2009 - why would anyone write down lies?"
This is exactly what happened with Jericho. A natural event was
hijacked. Your problem is that you are too gullible to accept that.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
What we are seeing here today are people trying to correct your
errors/lies and educate you.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Desertphile
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 8:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Suzanne wrote:
> >>> ....>unplonk!!<...
> >> Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
> >>> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
> >>> what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
> >>> was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
> >>> said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
> >>> Kenyon found at Jericho.
Actually no, the ruins (specifically Tell es-Sultan) thought to be
Jericho show the Bible is wrong.
> >> You have been saying that.
> >> We all understand that you have been saying that.
> >> What we have pointed out every rtime you have said that is that
> >> KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT.
> >> Nor does anyone who has actually studied the area.
That is 100% correct. Jericho was destroyed several times over the
centuries, getting smaller and smaller, and it ceased to exist
long before the time Joshua is said to have existed.
Kenyon's conclusions over the previous 50 years have been
confirmed by others working on the site. The Bible got it wrong
because the Joshua mythology was written around the time of the
tyrant Josiah.
> > I was asked about that several times, and provided a website where
> > someone could see her being quoted.
> > However, some of you have not given a website backing up what you are
> > saying that she said.
Once was enough.
> I did, you were wrong and I quoted and posted the reference from the link
> you gave. All of us don't have to post such things.
Another funny thing: Jericho had existed much longer than many
Young Earth Creationists believe (or claim to believe) Earth has
existed.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
Fundamentalist cultists do not benefit from visiting museums.
Desertphile
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
> > Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
> > writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail. If
> > someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
> > given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
> > found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
> > Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
> > it.
> Suppose I presented you with a story about Santa Rosa California in the
> early 1930's, told you the author claimed to have written it and that the
> writer said he lived in Rohnert Park at the time.
> The main character of the story was a man who rode a bicycle from Mill
> Valley to Santa Rosa on a regular basis (about 45 miles one way)
>
> You might accept some or all of it. An educated person would know that some
> or all of the story was false.
The same problem applied to Nazareth.
> It was not written in the 30's because Rohnert Park did not exist then. It
> had to have been written no earlier than when the city was proposed which
> was in the late 1950's and it did not actually become a town until 1962.
> History might or might not be able to tell if the bike rider was real or if
> he made such trips.
> (Which, according to the story he did in order to work with Luthor Burbank.
> Burbank lived, my cousins grandfather lived at the same time and the gardens
> surrounding his huge home on a hill in Mill Valley was surrounded by
> carefully tended woods and gardens)
>
> That type of problem happens over and over again in the bible and is just
> one of the reason why archeology today says the bible is mostly fiction.
It's even worse (or better, from another point of view) with the
Jericho fable in the Bible. The Bible has Jericho's population
living as they might have lived in the -600s (Gregorian calendar),
instead of the -5,000s when they actually lived (well, from around
-7,000 GC to around -4,000 GC). The writers of the fable just
assumed that the Jericho inhabitants lived the way modern (-600s)
people lived in Jerusalem.
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
>
> � >>
>
> >> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
> >> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
> >> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>
> > I hope that with this announcement you won't get
> > the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
> > sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
> > Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
> > you are denying to believe your claims. You should
> > seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
>
> You should read something other than the bible.
>
to know the truth though, then read the Bible. In the many
years that I have been living, I've seen many claims that
have been made against the Bible. Every time, those
claims get overturned and thrown out, but then comes a
newer crowd that have to learn this.
>
> Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of �what you
> believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
> tell us that it did happen.
>
for things against the Bible.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
What you are telling is not accurate. What Jesus is
talking about was someone's quest for wisdom as
comes from the Lord, and as someone who is in
God's will. What had been spoken about that my
statement that God answers prayer with "yes, no,
maybe, or wait," is what the Lord also says in the
Bible. He says to wait on him in one place. He says
that he may answer in another place. He says no,
in another place. He says yes in another place.
You've taken what I replied to another thing and
tried to apply it to something else. That may not
have been clear to you though that you were doing
that.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
>
> �>> Until about 50 years ago much of the work in archeology was done
>
>
>
>
>
> >> with the idea that the bible was essentially correct in how it
> >> recorded history. Since then people have been doing archeology in
> >> the area the same way they do it anyplace else on earth. The results
> >> have pretty much shown that those stories were written hundreds of
> >> years after the time period and reflect the time it was written,
> >> much the way a movie dresses people in styles that represent modern
> >> times.
> >> Following the practices that demand you ignore any evidence that
> >> does not support the bible view is not science no matter how you
> >> look at it.
>
> >> If fundamental Christians today were sent 100 years into the past
> >> they would be accused of being raving liberals.
>
> > What we are seeing here today though is liberals trying to rave at a
> > Christian.
>
> What we are seeing here is a shrinking band of fundamental Christians making
> their last stand.
>
telling you that the Bible is true and is the word of
God.
>
> They don't have the intelligence or the education to realize that *they*
> would be called liberal by fundamentalists in the past. You probably don;t
> even believe a person should die for stealing an apple, but that's the way
>
No, I would not be called a liberal by any fundamentalist
of the past. They would stand up for God's word, just like
I have done to you.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 3, 9:38�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> � >>
>>
>> >> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
>> >> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
>> >> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>>
>> > I hope that with this announcement you won't get
>> > the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
>> > sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
>> > Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
>> > you are denying to believe your claims. You should
>> > seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
>>
>> You should read something other than the bible.
>>
>I've read many things that are not in the Bible. If you want
>to know the truth though, then read the Bible. In the many
>years that I have been living, I've seen many claims that
>have been made against the Bible. Every time, those
>claims get overturned and thrown out, but then comes a
>newer crowd that have to learn this.
That is not true. The Bible is completely unreliable as history and
science. It is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The creation myths, the flood
myth, the myth about languages, the silly story about Jericho, all
nonsense. Even the New Testament is unsupported by any independent
collaboration and only gets 'prophecies' right when they were written
after the event in question (the destruction of Jerusalem) happened.
>> Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of �what you
>> believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
>> tell us that it did happen.
>>
>Read the criticism of "The Bible Unearthed." You should not fall
>for things against the Bible.
You worship your interpretation of the Bible. You are wrong.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 3, 9:49�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Excuses, excuses.
Remember that you have no evidence that Jesus said anything that the
Bible claims he said. The Bible cannot be trusted and you need to stop
worshipping your interpretation of it.
Suzanne
>
You seem to now be referring to a specific thing, Mike.
But what you said above is
"What we have pointed out every rtime you have
said that is that KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT."
which is a vague reference on your part not being
about a specific time, it does not stand to reason that
you should now point out a specific time and have it
cover "every time." I've tried to respond to each
situation individually, unless someone is talking about
"every." So if you quote my answer to a specific time,
and try to make it apply to "every time," that is not
accurate, if you follow me.
>
To clarify this, if I told you that someone bought peaches
at Sandy's Supermarket, and also at Daniel's Supermarket,
then you could not say that the person buys peaches at all
the markets.
>
I understand that you think you are seeing an inconsistency
in one place, but you are trying to apply it to all places, and
yet not really understanding the one place that was
responded to. Something can look inconsistent to you in
one way and yet not really be when you unravel it. You
sort of have to take each thing individually.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 3, 9:45�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> �>> Until about 50 years ago much of the work in archeology was done
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> with the idea that the bible was essentially correct in how it
>> >> recorded history. Since then people have been doing archeology in
>> >> the area the same way they do it anyplace else on earth. The results
>> >> have pretty much shown that those stories were written hundreds of
>> >> years after the time period and reflect the time it was written,
>> >> much the way a movie dresses people in styles that represent modern
>> >> times.
>> >> Following the practices that demand you ignore any evidence that
>> >> does not support the bible view is not science no matter how you
>> >> look at it.
>>
>> >> If fundamental Christians today were sent 100 years into the past
>> >> they would be accused of being raving liberals.
>>
>> > What we are seeing here today though is liberals trying to rave at a
>> > Christian.
>>
>> What we are seeing here is a shrinking band of fundamental Christians making
>> their last stand.
>>
>No, that's not what you are seeing. You are people
>telling you that the Bible is true and is the word of
>God.
Who decides what is and is not God's Word? You? Why should I trust you
when you reject physical evidence?
>> They don't have the intelligence or the education to realize that *they*
>> would be called liberal by fundamentalists in the past. You probably don;t
>> even believe a person should die for stealing an apple, but that's the way
>> the law used to read and it was based on the bible.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>No, I would not be called a liberal by any fundamentalist
>of the past. They would stand up for God's word, just like
>I have done to you.
How can you know what is God's Word?
What criteria do you use?
Is the Q'ran? Is the Book of Mormon? Is Bhagavad Gita? The Vedas? Adi
Granth? What test do you use to determine which are the Word of God?
Mike Painter
You would not have been allowed to speak and the chances are good thatwhat
you wear to church on a spring day would have marked you as a harlot then.
You probably don't believe that people should be put to death for stealing
an apple.
The list of things you accept now as what is right is far longer than what
was accepted 100 years ago and in the days of the reformation your beliefs
would have had you burnt if you moved to the wrong village.
Mike Painter
I'm quoting your fucking bible and you tell me it is not accurate.
It's not my faulkt that the people writing the stories could not meet and
agree on what was what.
What part of the section I quoted is wrong and why.
Or you can read a slightly different version in Luke with the same promise.
Luke 11:9-13
In both cases *your* god say that he is at least as good as a parent.
11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
them that ask him?
Perhaps you did give rocks to your kids.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Fundamentalist cultists do not benefit from visiting museums.
I walked into a board meeting to hear our secretary giving a rambling
disjointed explanation about how evolution was not true based on his recent
visit to a creationist museum. That he did not really understand some of
their points was evident.
I did not take part and was ready to say that a government board meeting was
not the place to discuss religion had he addressed me ( other to tell him
the word he was looking for was hyperbaric)
Yes, I am a coward, I do *NOT* want his job.
Suzanne
real one, minus the restored part? It is the whole frontal
part of a double gate, the back part of which is also at
the Museum, but stored since it would be too large for
the current set up. Some of the animals on the gate are
elsewhere in museums, but most of it that remains
is at the Pergamon, in it's restored form. Much of it is
indeed the original Ishtar Gate that was built in 575 B.C.
by the orders of King Nebuchadnezzar. For someone to
try to claim that it is not the original one, except for the
restored part is wrong because it is the authentic thing.
To claim that it is not authentic because some bricks are
replaced is wrong.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
an uneducated person about Jericho's archaeological
site. The Bible has not been proven to be wrong or
fiction. I am well aware of the modern claims, but I'm also
aware of the rebuttals to those claims, which you do not
seem to have known about.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
You are ignoring all the things that have been found (or do
not have knowledge of them, which is more like it) that
are mentioned in the Bible that have been found exactly
as the Bible says.
>
> It is pure amazing how you can ignore evidence that has been pointed
> out to you time and again. �Try _reading_ Kenyon and you will see that
> she SAYS it does not match the bible.
>
are ignoring so you have it backwards. Kathleen Kenyon
found EXACTLY what the Bible writer wrote would be
found under the mound of Jericho. YOU have not explained
how that can be. What is obvious is that you are in denial.
The problem that you are having is in the dating, which has
some opposition if you will go and read it.
>
However, if you are confused about that one site, you need
to go read about the other sites about which there is no
opposition at all. Warren's Shaft, for example, Mary's well/
aka Gihon Spring, etc.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Harry, open the Bible and read what it says in detail.
Then look at what Kathleen Kenyon found and you
will see that what she found is what the Bible writer
said we would find under the mound of Jericho. You
are simply dismissing it lightly, but you have no
explanation for it. Look at what you say above! It's
denial. A writer from 1445 B.C. would not list exactly
what is there, unless it was exactly what was there
before and after the siege of Jericho.
>
Suzanne
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean rebuttals such as Kenyon's own writings? Remember, she
herself says Jericho does not match the bible.
Harry K
Suzanne
>
on the wall, it was an unusual thing. It was not ordinary to
find the grains still in the containers from a fresh harvest.
After the idiotic claim by wrong archaeologists that there
was no wall around Jericho at the time, it is a great find
that the Italians made to find the base of the walls and
verify that it was indeed what the Bible writer wrote from
long ago that was completely accurate. But there is more
in the details. The harvest was fresh when put into the
containers and this has been shown. The brick walls fell
down "outwards and flat," which one is able to see of the
rubble, as it made ramparts, exactly as the details express.
That the layer is burned supports what the Bible says that
the layer was to be razed with fire. You are not dealing with
one or two things found at every site, you are dealing with
a whole lot of details not found at other sites, but found at
this one, just like the Bible says it would be. I've provided
the details, the comparisons, the websites explaining what
was found there, and photos as well in the websites. I'm
sure I'm not the only one that has done that to show to
people who are skeptical.
>
Suzanne
Mike Painter
Your inability to grasp what was said is not my problem.
Your ability to babble on about such things is amusing but serves no
purpose.
I was referring to what you said about posting a URL and not everybody
responding.
You posted it, I read it and showed where you were wrong by quoting waht was
actually said.
In general quoting from *any* website you suggest is the best way to show
that you really do not understand what you read.
Suzanne
> Suzanne wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:33 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 6:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Suzanne wrote:
> >>>> ....>unplonk!!<...
> >>> Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
> >>>> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand what I
> >>>> had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist was supposed
> >>>> to find should fit what is in the Bible, I said that what was
> >>>> in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen Kenyon found at Jericho.
> >>> You have been saying that. We all understand that you have been
> >>> saying that. What we have pointed out every rtime you have said
> >>> that is that KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT. Nor does anyone who has
> >>> actually studied the area.
> >> Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
> >> it matches.
>
> > This is not create-idiot logic. It's real logic. She did find the
> > bricks "blackened and reddened with fire" (her words already affirmed
> > containers, confirming when the grain was harvested, a portion of the
> > wall with two houses actually built on it as the Bible tells Rahab's
> > house was, the base of the walls themselves, countering claims that
> > there were no walls, which was used to attack the Bible with earlier,
>
> This is a strawman. Nobody ever claimed there were no walls. The _only_
> issue is their dating
>
> before the
>
> > base of the walls were found, the bricks forming ramparts upon which
> > the soldiers could have ready access into the city, the city layer
> > being burned with fire, exactly as the Bible says that it was.
> >> All while somehow ignoring the facts > that show what she found
> >> happened some centuries before the bible claimed.
>
> > This is based on what she thought the timing of the Exodus would have
> > found.
>
> Most emphatically no. Her dating has absolutely nothing to do with any
> theories about exodus. it is based solely in the stratigraphic analysis
> of the dig, and the dating of the artefacts (later _confirmed_ by C14
> testing)See her
>
> So what you are saying that has been ignored was not ignored
>
> > but seen for what it was.
> >> I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
>
> > Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
> > writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail.
> > If someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
> > given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
> > found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
> > Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
> > it.
>
> Only if what he Bible describes is unique enough. Walls destroyed by
> fire, are not. In fact, at Jericho you find destroyed fortification
> exactly what we find in many ruins - they are often the basis for C14
> testing.
>
> An analogy to forensic science: Blood was found on the crime scene, and
> you are arguing that therefore the suspect is guilty, because he too has
> blood. Obviously flawed, as it does not single him out from other
> possible contenders.
>
> Same here. We expect walls, signs of fire, grains etc irrespective of
> whether it was Joshua, an earlier invasion probably by the Hyksos, or an
> theories. But what is not general are the dates for the artefacts that
> have been found, based on both traditional analysis using teh methods of
> comparative art history by Kenyon, and modern scientific methods by the
> Dutch team in the 1990s. And what makes things worse, the dating of the
> layer _above_
> also contradicts the idea of a destruction by Joshua as it shows
> settlement in the ruins by the Israelites
>
> Now, if the trumpets had been found, that would be another story. Not
> quite as good as evidence, but somehow better would have been a find of
> the skeletons of children, woman and animals with clear swordmarks on
> their bones ("They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the
> sword every living thing in it�men and women, young and old, cattle,
> sheep and donkeys.)Which makes me wonder why a Christian would _want_
> that story to be historically accurate, as it shows god as as brutal
> tyrant bent on genocide.
>
>
>
> >> A creatidiot has a shield that prevents any and all awkward facts
> >> from penetrating.
>
> > What one person sees as being the actual cornerstone, someone else
> > will see as being a rock of offense. Only trouble is, the
>
What you need to do is say "Yes, what the Bible says in detail
has been found at Jericho," and stop saying that no evidence
is found because it is accurate to say that evidence has been
found that matches what the Bible writer said was there, before
it was unearthed.
>
Now, about the date, you should say what you feel is right about
that, but hear me, too that they are looking at other reasons (that
have been opposed) as to why they think it was not the timing.
I gave a website at least three times showing the opposition,
with the reasoning concerning the dating.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
Saying that someone is gullible and that they are lying
and all the stuff that you throw at people make you
look silly since you don't present anything scientific.
You say that date is 150 years off...but you don't
explain what you are talking about, for example.
I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, but to show
you that you are not debating when you speak the
way that you do with insults, etc.
>
Suzanne
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 4, 3:30锟絘m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>> > On Dec 3, 9:33 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 2, 6:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Suzanne wrote:
>> >>>> ....>unplonk!!<...
>> >>> Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
>> >>>> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand what I
>> >>>> had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist was supposed
>> >>>> to find should fit what is in the Bible, I said that what was
>> >>>> in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen Kenyon found at Jericho.
>> >>> You have been saying that. We all understand that you have been
>> >>> saying that. What we have pointed out every rtime you have said
>> >>> that is that KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT. Nor does anyone who has
>> >>> actually studied the area.
>> >> Well, she is using creatidiot logic. She found some bricks, some
>> >> grain, foundations of a wall, all 锟絘re mentioned in the bible, ergo
>> >> it matches.
>>
>> > This is not create-idiot logic. It's real logic. She did find the
>> > bricks "blackened and reddened with fire" (her words already affirmed
>> > 锟絙y a URL), not just "some" grain but the fresh harvest still in the
>> > containers, confirming when the grain was harvested, a portion of the
>> > wall with two houses actually built on it as the Bible tells Rahab's
>> > house was, the base of the walls themselves, countering claims that
>> > there were no walls, which was used to attack the Bible with earlier,
>>
>> This is a strawman. Nobody ever claimed there were no walls. The _only_
>> issue is their dating
>>
>> before the
>>
>> > base of the walls were found, the bricks forming ramparts upon which
>> > the soldiers could have ready access into the city, the city layer
>> > being burned with fire, exactly as the Bible says that it was.
>> >> All while somehow ignoring the facts > that show what she found
>> >> happened some centuries before the bible claimed.
>>
>> > This is based on what she thought the timing of the Exodus would have
>> > 锟絙een, and not on the layer of city in which the above things were
>> > found.
>>
>> Most emphatically no. Her dating has absolutely nothing to do with any
>> theories about exodus. it is based solely in the stratigraphic analysis
>> of the dig, and the dating of the artefacts (later _confirmed_ by C14
>> testing)See her
>>
>> So what you are saying that has been ignored was not ignored
>>
>> > but seen for what it was.
>> >> I predict that she will keep insisting that Kenyon claims her finds
>> >> 锟絙acks up the bible.
>>
>> > Before any archaeologist dug in the ground at Jericho, the Bible
>> > writer wrote what happened in the Bible, and he wrote it in detail.
>> > If someone then digs up artifacts that exactly match the odd details
>> > given, then one can conclude and continue to stress that what was
>> > found to be at Jericho when it was unearthed is, in fact, what the
>> > Bible says should be there, according to the writer who wrote about
>> > it.
>>
>> Only if what he Bible describes is unique enough. Walls destroyed by
>> fire, are not. In fact, at Jericho you find destroyed fortification
>> _below_ the wall in question that are even older. 锟紼qually, grains are
>> exactly what we find in many ruins - they are often the basis for C14
>> testing.
>>
>> An analogy to forensic science: Blood was found on the crime scene, and
>> you are arguing that therefore the suspect is guilty, because he too has
>> blood. Obviously flawed, as it does not single him out from other
>> possible contenders.
>>
>> Same here. We expect walls, signs of fire, grains etc irrespective of
>> whether it was Joshua, an earlier invasion probably by the Hyksos, or an
>> earthquake. It is too general to 锟絛iscriminate between alternative
>> theories. But what is not general are the dates for the artefacts that
>> have been found, based on both traditional analysis using teh methods of
>> comparative art history by Kenyon, and modern scientific methods by the
>> Dutch team in the 1990s. And what makes things worse, the dating of the
>> layer _above_
>> also contradicts the idea of a destruction by Joshua as it shows
>> settlement in the ruins by the Israelites
>>
>> Now, if the trumpets had been found, that would be another story. Not
>> quite as good as evidence, but somehow better would have been a find of
>> the skeletons of children, woman and animals with clear swordmarks on
>> their bones ("They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the
>> sword every living thing in it锟絤en and women, young and old, cattle,
>> sheep and donkeys.)Which makes me wonder why a Christian would _want_
>> that story to be historically accurate, as it shows god as as brutal
>> tyrant bent on genocide.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> A creatidiot has a shield that prevents any and all awkward facts
>> >> from penetrating.
>>
>> > What one person sees as being the actual cornerstone, someone else
>> > will see as being a rock of offense. Only trouble is, the
>> > cornerstone, is really the cornerstone. Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>>
>What you need to do is say "Yes, what the Bible says in detail
>has been found at Jericho," and stop saying that no evidence
>is found because it is accurate to say that evidence has been
>found that matches what the Bible writer said was there, before
>it was unearthed.
The evidence shows that the story about the ruins of Jericho was
invented long after it was destroyed.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 4, 4:49�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
What's to debate?
>Saying that someone is gullible and that they are lying
>and all the stuff that you throw at people make you
>look silly since you don't present anything scientific.
You never offer anything scientific and keep worshipping your
interpretation of the highly unreliable Bible. What a waste of time.
>You say that date is 150 years off...but you don't
>explain what you are talking about, for example.
>I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, but to show
>you that you are not debating when you speak the
>way that you do with insults, etc.
You never debate. You demand that we accept your personal claims about
the Bible, no matter what the evidence shows.
Your hubris is breathtaking.
Suzanne
wrote:
saying, as you have said that the writers believed this
and that. How, for example, are you concluding that
writers assumed that Jericho inhabitants lived a certain
way. (And it is not clear what way that is that you are
talking about.)
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:51:31 -0800, "Mike Painter"
>
> > Suzanne wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 8:50 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> Suzanne wrote:
> > >>> ....>unplonk!!<...
> > >> Unplonk? Did you ask your god if this would work.
> > >>> Dave, your reasoning shows that you didn't understand
> > >>> what I had said. I didn't say that what an archaeologist
> > >>> was supposed to find should fit what is in the Bible, I
> > >>> said that what was in the Bible is exactly what Kathleen
> > >>> Kenyon found at Jericho.
>
> Actually no, the ruins (specifically Tell es-Sultan) thought to be
> Jericho show the Bible is wrong.
>
evidence of what Kathleen Kenyon found that exactly
matches what the Bible says, and supports the details
that are within the biblical account. You can't just dismiss
that with a sentence saying the above when someone that
is debating has shown evidence, photos, etc., showing
that Kathleen Kenyon's finds are what the details of the
scriptures say. So, I don't accept what you are saying
as accurate concerning this debate.
>
> > >> You have been saying that.
> > >> We all understand that you have been saying that.
> > >> What we have pointed out every rtime you have said that is that
> > >> KENYON DID NOT SAY THAT.
> > >> Nor does anyone who has actually studied the area.
>
> That is 100% correct. Jericho was destroyed several times over the
> centuries, getting smaller and smaller, and it ceased to exist
> long before the time Joshua is said to have existed.
>
You are not being specific in what you are saying, but
are speaking in general terms and you are not offering
any evidence but just a nay or a yeah. There is also a
problem in what you are saying in that the date of the
exodus has never been confirmed by anyone, so you
would not know exactly when Joshua would have gotten
there. You might explain dates, etc. to support what you
think, if you know them. (If you have time to do that.)
>
> Kenyon's conclusions over the previous 50 years have been
> confirmed by others working on the site. The Bible got it wrong
> because the Joshua mythology was written around the time of the
> tyrant Josiah.
>
Is based on only a small amount of evidence. She did not
dig the whole city, only a small portion of it, for example. A
website has been given showing (photo) of the amount that
she excavated. Her date does not support the time, but do
you know what she was dating, for example.
>
> > > I was asked about that several times, and provided a website where
> > > someone could see her being quoted.
> > > However, some of you have not given a website backing up what you are
> > > saying that she said.
>
> Once was enough.
>
>
> > I did, you were wrong and I quoted and posted the reference from the link
> > you gave. All of us don't have to post such things.
>
> Another funny thing: Jericho had existed much longer than many
> Young Earth Creationists believe (or claim to believe) Earth has
> existed.
>
dating system fails, due to the raqiya being destroyed,
which would cause C-14 dating to not be accurate past
7-10 thousand years. But would you mind showing what
you mean with back up, to show what you are saying
concerning how old Jericho is. It is a good point and
would be interesting for people to read. 10,000 years
is within what the Young Earth Creationists believe.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:55:31 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
>
I have a lot more evidence than you do for what you
are saying. I have the evidence of the Bible, and you
do not have any evidence of anything except your
opinion.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:48:37 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
a very long time, but you are not presenting any facts,
and you are unaware of facts that have been presented,
which you don't seem to have knowledge of. All of your
claims are unsupported by you.
>
> >> Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of �what you
> >> believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
> >> tell us that it did happen.
>
> >Read the criticism of "The Bible Unearthed." You should not fall
> >for things against the Bible.
>
>
They were citing a book, and I was citing a rebuttal, but
you are not citing anything but an opinion that does not
seem to based on anything but what you choose to
think.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:50:50 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
that some have on what they think they are seeing. And
you should not just accept what I am saying. : )
You should go by what the Holy Spirit places on your
heart. You probably hear his evidence, but think it is not
him speaking to your heart or something.
>
> >> They don't have the intelligence or the education to realize that *they*
> >> would be called liberal by fundamentalists in the past. You probably don;t
> >> even believe a person should die for stealing an apple, but that's the way
> >> the law used to read and it was based on the bible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >No, I would not be called a liberal by any fundamentalist
> >of the past. They would stand up for God's word, just like
> >I have done to you.
>
> How can you know what is God's Word?
>
asking here. I don't know what to tell you since I
have always believed the Bible to be God's word. Of
those that didn't think that it was, but who have decided
that it is, they tell me that when they read the Bible it
had a power of it's own to convince them. I've heard others
say that they could tell by the Holy Spirit confirming it in
their hearts as they read it.
>
> What criteria do you use?
>
> Is the Q'ran? Is the Book of Mormon? Is Bhagavad Gita? The Vedas? Adi
>
Myself? I accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was 7 years
old and he confirms things in my heart and tells me things
that are not right, too. To someone that does not understand
this, it might be maddening to hear this. They might think that
they wonder why they got left out, but they have not been left
out. It doesn't matter if someone is 7 or 92, they can have the
same experience.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:50:50 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
>
What test do I use. If ever I choose wrong, the Lord works this
grating feeling inside of me that makes me
restless and like something is wrong.
It's not a very scientific sounding explanation, but that is what it
is like. If something is a good choice it usually is confirmed
internally and also by external things as well...like,
for example I may hear someone else
say the same thing, not knowing what decision I have made and when I
hear them saying the same thing, then I feel this inner "joy" that the
Holy Spirit gives which confirms agreement. As time goes on, when one
does this, they develop a sensitivity that they learn to trust that is
like flying blind with instruments.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
statement that you said I was wrong
about. I was also telling what the
Lord said, because someone praying
to him might get an answer of yes, no,
maybe or wait. The Lord inspired what
passages you quoted, but he also spoke through passages what I had
said, too. Yet you were pitting them
against one another, rather than realizing that he said all of it and
that
it coordinates, rather than opposes.
>
> It's not my faulkt that the people writing the stories could not meet and
> agree on what was what.
>
> What part of the section I quoted is wrong and why.
>
(about what I had said) was not accurate.
>
> Or you can read a slightly different version in Luke with the same promise.
> Luke 11:9-13
>
> In both cases *your* god say that he is at least as good as a parent.
> 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
> children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
> them that ask him?
>
>
Mike, I guess I was not clear, and I
apologize.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Dec 3, 4:59�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > > NO! This does NOT contradict her! She is the
>
> > > > one who said that she wanted to be careful to
> > > > not let the Bible interfere with her work. She
> > > > may have known the jist of the story, but she
> > > > has been criticised by many for not knowing
> > > > or even referring to the details given in the
> > > > biblical account. Everyone knows about the
> > > > Bible story but most of the people in here
> > > > arguing with me have not read the details of
> > > > the story or even seem to know about them,
> > > > or they would not be arguing with me about
> > > > such simple things.
>
> > > Until about 50 years ago much of the work in archeology was done with the
> > > idea that the bible was essentially correct in how it recorded history.
> > > Since then people have been doing archeology in the area the same way they
> > > do it anyplace else on earth. The results have pretty much shown that those
> > > stories were written hundreds of years after the time period and reflect the
> > > time it was written, much the way a movie dresses people in styles that
> > > represent modern times.
> > > Following the practices that demand you ignore any evidence that does not
> > > support the bible view is not science no matter how you look at it.
>
> > > If fundamental Christians today were sent 100 years into the past they would
> > > be accused of being raving liberals.
>
> > What we are seeing here today though is liberals trying to rave at a
> > Christian.
>
>
>
> fundamentalist. �So much of one that I wouldn't even call you a
> Christian. �Christians worship God, you worship a book.
>
The Bible is God's gift to us which is the key to understanding Him.
What you are saying is a foolish charge that does not make any sense.
Jesus prayed to the Father that we would be sanctified by his word,
which is truth.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
>On Dec 3, 9:38�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> � >>
>>
>> >> The archaeology at Jericho, once modern dating methods were adopted,
>> >> shows the biblical story is wrong. In fact it show so much of the
>> >> bible is wrong that it really is hard to take it seriously.
>>
>> > I hope that with this announcement you won't get
>> > the idea that anyone is going to fly through the
>> > sky with you and follow you to "Not Ever Land."
>> > Too much has been found in the Holy Land that
>> > you are denying to believe your claims. You should
>> > seriously stay out of skeptic websites.
>>
>> You should read something other than the bible.
>>
>I've read many things that are not in the Bible. If you want
>to know the truth though, then read the Bible.
That is the last place to look for the truth.
> In the many
>years that I have been living, I've seen many claims that
>have been made against the Bible. Every time, those
>claims get overturned and thrown out,
You need to get yourself an little honesty.
> but then comes a
>newer crowd that have to learn this.
>>
>> Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of �what you
>> believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
>> tell us that it did happen.
>>
>Read the criticism of "The Bible Unearthed." You should not fall
>for things against the Bible.
You should not fall for the bible. It makes you look very stupid.
>>
>Suzanne
>
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Pot, kettle and so black it hurts the eyes.
>>
>> >> Try "The Bible Unearthed" Not only will you see that most of �what you
>> >> believe never happened but you can quote the first part of most sections and
>> >> tell us that it did happen.
>>
>> >Read the criticism of "The Bible Unearthed." You should not fall
>> >for things against the Bible.
>>
>> You worship your interpretation of the Bible. You are wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>They were citing a book, and I was citing a rebuttal, but
>you are not citing anything but an opinion that does not
>seem to based on anything but what you choose to
>think.
Get an education.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 3, 9:49�pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> �>>> "Look in the bible to see what I will find" (loose translation of
>Suzanne
This is the real problem for the bible - it is so full of
contradictions you end up with thousands of different churches ALL
claiming that they are right.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Lying for Jeebus doesn't count as evidence.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And you don't think there contradictions make the bible look silly?
>>
>> It's not my faulkt that the people writing the stories could not meet and
>> agree on what was what.
>>
>> What part of the section I quoted is wrong and why.
>>
>I didn't say that what you quoted was wrong. I said that what you said
>(about what I had said) was not accurate.
Oh?
>>
>> Or you can read a slightly different version in Luke with the same promise.
>> Luke 11:9-13
>>
>> In both cases *your* god say that he is at least as good as a parent.
>> 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
>> children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
>> them that ask him?
>>
>> Perhaps you did give rocks to your kids.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>Mike, I guess I was not clear, and I
>apologize.
But have you now learnt that, on what your gods will do in reply to
prayers, there are enough different answers that the bible looks
useless?
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In 1445 BC there was no Jericho to lay siege to.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No it was not - it was very common.
> It was not ordinary to
>find the grains still in the containers from a fresh harvest.
Why not?
>After the idiotic claim by wrong archaeologists that there
>was no wall around Jericho at the time,
In 1445 BC there was no Jericho.
> it is a great find
>that the Italians made to find the base of the walls and
>verify that it was indeed what the Bible writer wrote from
>long ago that was completely accurate. But there is more
>in the details. The harvest was fresh when put into the
>containers and this has been shown.
Has it?
> The brick walls fell
>down "outwards and flat,"
The direction of least resistance.
>which one is able to see of the
>rubble, as it made ramparts, exactly as the details express.
>That the layer is burned supports what the Bible says that
>the layer was to be razed with fire.
A common enough event after an earthquake.
> You are not dealing with
>one or two things found at every site, you are dealing with
>a whole lot of details not found at other sites,
Ah! But that is where you are wrong. There is evidence that several
other towns in the region were damaged by the same massive earthquake.
> but found at
>this one, just like the Bible says it would be. I've provided
>the details, the comparisons, the websites explaining what
>was found there, and photos as well in the websites. I'm
>sure I'm not the only one that has done that to show to
>people who are skeptical.
And yet, still, you have the problem that the evidence doesn't fit.
>>
>Suzanne
Look. The date the Bible gives for the Fall of Jericho should agree
with the date that archaeology gives. It doesn't, in the opinion of
many scholars there is a discrepancy of at least 150 years, so that
they believe that Jericho was destroyed 150 years before Joshua even
turned up! So there was no fortified City of Jericho when Joshua led
the Conquest of the Land, and the whole story is a myth.
Add to that the modern archaeological views that there never was a
exodus from Egypt and that the Israelites were an emergent group of
native Canaanites who developed no earliest that about 1200 BC, and
you have to start rejecting large parts of the bible.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Wrong, as usual.
> I am well aware of the modern claims, but I'm also
>aware of the rebuttals to those claims, which you do not
>seem to have known about.
Your "rebuttals" have been rebutted,
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No it does not.
>You are ignoring all the things that have been found (or do
>not have knowledge of them, which is more like it) that
>are mentioned in the Bible that have been found exactly
>as the Bible says.
You have been shown the dating.
>>
>> It is pure amazing how you can ignore evidence that has been pointed
>> out to you time and again. �Try _reading_ Kenyon and you will see that
>> she SAYS it does not match the bible.
>>
>The evidence is what I am paying attention to and *you*
>are ignoring so you have it backwards. Kathleen Kenyon
>found EXACTLY what the Bible writer wrote would be
>found under the mound of Jericho. YOU have not explained
>how that can be.
Yes we have.
> What is obvious is that you are in denial.
>The problem that you are having is in the dating, which has
>some opposition if you will go and read it.
Modern dating puts the destruction of Jericho at 1562 BC plus or minus
38 years (Hendrik J. Bruins/Johannes van der Plicht). Thus radiocarbon
dating puts Jericho's destruction between 1600-1524 BC, agreeing with
Kenyon.
>>
>However, if you are confused about that one site, you need
>to go read about the other sites about which there is no
>opposition at all. Warren's Shaft, for example, Mary's well/
>aka Gihon Spring, etc.
>>
>Suzanne
We can move on to those later, once you accept the reality that the
biblical story of Jericho is fiction.