Reliable history in the Bible

quote:

---

Many Biblical critics have said the metal known as bronze or brass did not exist in the early Mosaic authorship period; therefore, late post Solomon authorship is supported. Deuteronomy is synchronized as having been written in Middle or Late Bronze, or the fifteenth century BC

---

Please provide quotes and full references (including publication dates) for some of the most prominent "Biblical critics" you refer to. I have learned to be very suspicious of claims like these. Typically "many" appears to mean "nobody that I know of".Mind you, anybody surprised to find bronze tools in the Bronze Age is not exactly on the ball. By definition the Bronze Age requires the use of Bronze (IIRC specifically in cutting implements). I have a strong suspicion that the actual issue is the mention of iron in Deuteronomy 33.25. Because that argument would actually make sense.

I wasnt going to respond , because Im sure we could keep going on.I want to sum-up what you are disputing.I feel that the Bible's Joshua-Judges text should be considered historical (especially the Conquest city-lists from Joshua to the early chapters of Judges) because it describes a general situation of the highland-regions of Palestine seeing the vast majority of its native population wiped out roughly 600 years before the reign of Solomon(c.970BCE), and replaced by a pastoralist population. (that would lead us to the end of the Middle Bronze Age c1550BCE)I see that the specifically-named cities in the Bibles conquest were infact destroyed at that time in the archaeological record.Infact, outside the highland-region & some other near-by regions (like the northern valley regions where some battles happened) where the Bible describes as the location for the deadly combat, no cities were destroyed in the archaeological record.I also mentioned that the pastoralist population (being the Israelites)-as described in the Bible (especially in the book of Joshua through the first 3 chapters of Judges)- has a historical record of cities that Canaanites did and did not remain in after the 1550 (terminal-MBA)Conquest.I mentioned that there were over 12 Biblical cities from Joshua-Judges (specifically mentioned in these books with regards to whether the Israelites conquered and held in the period around the decade of the Conquest) mentioned from secular records (Amarna, Egyptian, Ugarit, etc.)during the post-Conquest (terminal MBA period of 1550)period until the Monarchy period.I pointed out that these secular records would (and do!) serve as an excellent way of testing the accuracy of the Biblical text.Because, we would need to see evidence that the Israelites did NOT control the cities that the Canaanites survived in.Then, with a critical understanding of the entire Judges situation; we would need to see evidence of no Canaanite population continuity in the vast majority of the conquered cities that the Bible clearly states the Israelites as holding.And if there is evidence of non-Israelite control (of cities that the Bible indicated control of in terminal-MBA c.1550) in the secular records post 1550BCE, then we would need to critically examine the situation.Cities like Bethshean , Dor, Taanach ,Sidon and the Philistine cities (in addition to others) were mentioned in non-Amarna sources.There wasnt any dispute over these from your end(?).The Bible and secular sources indicate non-Israelite control.In the Amarna records; we saw Acco, Megiddo , Hazor , Jerusalem ,Ashkelon ,Gath , Shechem , Gezer , Lachish , and Keilah (perhaps others)mentioned.My argument was the the Bibles text clearly indicated that after the post 1550BCE Conquest till the Monarchy (or say 100 years before which would be c1150), all Biblical Conquest cities (but 2: Lachish and Keilah) mentioned in Amarna (tablets) were also described in the Bible as being Canaanite controled (I admited that Shechem was complicated).I felt that Judges chapter 1 made Gezer clear and I feel the Judges text indicates Canaanite control over Shechem.I felt (and still feel) that the c1350 Amarna-tablets, being 200 years after the Conquest, did not disprove the c1550 Joshua texts of Lachish and Keilah being controlled by the Israelites (thus likley cleansed of Canaanites AT THE TIME).Since none (Keilah& Lachish) were mentioned in the Bibles text between 1550BCE and after 1000 BCE , then the Israelites could have lost control.Infact Judges (plus later texts) indicates that the Israelites werent anything but a somewhat-powerful group of loosely-unified (in kinship, though they lacked a reconised nation)tent-dwellers that were often controlled by non-Israelite forces.I point out that the fact that these 2 cities were in the area (in the highlands no less)that Canaanites were clearly described as having survived in relatively powerful cities (like Jerusalem), then the Israelites loosing control of Keilah & Lachish (whether periodic or throghout the entire Judges period, the Bible allows both due to its silence!) is understandable.I felt that the Amarna tablets backed up the Biblical situation.I still do.You disputed my conclusions on Keilah, Gezer, Lachish , and Shechem.You also feel that I have not made a case that the Israelites were in the land at this time (whether they existed at this time or not): that being 1550-1320BCE from the terminal-MBA to the Amarna Age.Ill get to the issue of israelite existence later but first.....In relation to the 4 cities you dispute (I cant understand the Gezer dispute at all honestly, but since you dispute it, I will include it) being Shechem , Gezer , Keilah, and Lachish.I just want to give a quick abbreviated summary of Amarna texts and/or abbreviated scholarly observations from popular literature. Here we have 4 cities mentioned that the Bible descibes in Joshua-Judges Conquest cities (whether surviving or not),including the major Canaanite hold of the region:Jerusalem.Notice that Gezer and Lachish are described as being around a group of stateless individuals (and all 3 consonants of this named group can linguistically be considered a match for the word we call "Hebrew", infact Frank Moore Cross thinks this word was the origin of the Hebrew tribal name).Quote from an Amarna letter Gezer and Shechem mentioned as being around stateless individuals, and we know that they could have been the majority of the highland region according to Finkelstein. Lachish and Shechem mentioned as being near powerful stateless individuals. Now Keilah Post 147 covers more archaeological evidence (for the terminal-MBA destructions plus other destructions)and scriptural data. The Abimelech Judges event was way after the Conquest, so lets not confuse seperate issues.The Conquest destruction was 1550BCE (or whenever the Middle Bronze Age ended in the highland regions of Palestine)and though Shechem wasnt clearly described as being fought, the cities around Shechem were described as being conquered.Geography would seem to indicate that Shechem was also conquered. Scholars have often wondered why it wasnt mentioned as conquered.It doesnt matter whether the Joshua text makes it 100% clear that it was defeated in battle or not.The archaeological situation fits the Bible.As for you comment on Lachish, I did not ignore a thing.See #147 again.The Bible simply does not mention Lachish between 1550 BCE (Conquest) and circe 900 BCE (2 Kings 14).A description that fits Gezer and Keilah also (600 year period where they arent mentioned).See #147 again.They could easily have been retaken by Canaanites by 1350BCE.Infact by soon after 1550 BCE (termainal-MBA Conquest), the Bible (in its last mention of Gezer till 950BCE)actually states Gezer was held by the Canaanites.As for your last city.Shechem is mentioned throughout Judges and the political situation reflected in the Amarna tablets couldnt fit the Bible any closer.The real test(with regards to the few cities that apparantly were retaken by Canaanites, that the Israelites once held c1550 BCE) is whether stateless individuals are mentioned around them.They manifestly are!And in all 4 cities you singled out and argued over (see above).Now the issue is who were these stateless individuals, which was reflected in this objection/question of yours. For that I must reference you to posts 135, 136, and 108The evidence is quite strong. These Habiru (which the consonants Ayin-P-R can be considered a phonetic match for the word we call Hebrew) were mentioned largely in the highland regions of Palestine from c1440-1150BCE (Thutmose III-Rameses IV).The references stopped exactly the period RIGHT BEFORE the Israelites started to settle down into cities.Simply because most Habiru were Israelites.Once the Israelites started to settle down, then they werent stateless individuals.Hence the Habiru wouldnt be mentioned anymore.If anything, the bigger debate about the Habiru shouldnt be whether most (That is,of the Habiru mentioned in Palestine, which the Israelite highland-regions were where they were "unevenly distributed") were or werent Israelites. The issue should be whether the Israelites were a conscious "Israelite" group by then (we know the Habiru were at least the genetic ancestors) .If they were, then the Habiru clearly were one and the same as the Israelites.The fact is that the LBA (1550-1200) highland-Palestine stateless individuals clearly were who would be mentioned in c1210 as "Israel" by Egypt.Again see post 108,135, and 136.The Bibles textual description of terminal-MBA Palestine is where the test is passed as to whether those c1430 Habiru were then consciously one and the same as the Biblical Israelites.I think the terminal MBA highland-destructions can only be described as a perfect fit with the Conquest.Infact all the details of the entirety of Palestine at the end of the MBA fits 100%.When else was Jericho, Hazor , and the other major cities destroyed in the same archaeological context (if not the "same year")?The Judges period (which one must read Joshua-Kings to get the total context HINT HINT Gezer, Keilah, and Lachish werent mentioned between then)and all secular records including Amarna fit 100%.Any critic worth his or her salt must see a clear fit between the Biblical text and the post MBA Palestinian archaeological situation (including Egyptian texts).The Bible is historically proven post Deuteronomy (if not before , but this discussion didnt cover that).Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I have time for a short reply on this one point.We were talking about cities (supposedly) conquered by Joshua.You say that the Book of Joshua is reliable.The Book of Joshua says that Joshua conquered Gezer.
He destroyed it's army (10:33) and enslaved the population (16:10).So according to a source you claim to be relible Gezer is one of the cities conquered by Joshua. What's so difficult to understand about that ? What's difficult to understand is why you should ignore what your suppsoedly reliable source has to say on the matter so completely. Want to explain that one ?I could go over the rest but I suppose there's really no point when this one issue really does illustrate the problems with your posts.

I think most people know by now (due to my references in past posts, check around post #100 or so) that Jericho and Hazor were found to have been destroyed in the exact same time period: terminal-MBA destructions (usually dated to 1550 BCE , though some are lowering the dates).In the case of Jericho, even the eternal-skeptic Brian admits that its walls were brought down by an earthquake.Gezer can also be used as a good test to figure out when the Conquest was.It would be a rare situation indeed for cities in such distant regions of Palestine to be described as destroyed (as is the case of the northern city of Hazor being mentioned as destroyed along with the central-highland cities)in the same period of a few years.I showed in post #147 that Gezer was also destroyed in that same exact time:the terminal-MBA period of c1550BCE.Thats the archaeological situation,but with regards to the Bibles text.....The terminal-MBA destructions (see#147) were reflected in the Joshua text that you quoted.Joshua represented a completed situation immediately after the initial battles.But an imcomplete situation with regards to the initial wars (say they were perhaps 10 years).After Jericho and Ai were said to have been destroyed, then Hazor lead a coalition of Canaanite cities to attack the Israelites.THAT BATTLE ENDED with Hazor loosing.The Israelites would attack other cities like Gezer.Many citadels were destroyed, and much of the urban population driven out or killed.NOWWWWWWWWWWWW (enter Judges)The early chapters of Judges simply provide a broader look at the ultimate outcome beyond the hot initial situation.I must refer you to the bloody Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.I remind you that the Soviets themselves told stories of how they would kill every male in an entire city (the urban section of villages)but THE VERY NEXT DAY the villages would be full of males again.Nearly 10% of Afghanistan was killed,over 1 million. Not only dont I ignore it, but infact the Joshua text ftting the archaeological record (see 147, at the VERY TOP for the specific Gezer evidence)was VITAL in my reconstruction of COMPLETE historical situation that actually happened in the terminal-MBA Palestine, and the rest of the remianing Bronze Age archaeological record also fit hand-in-glove with the post Joshua-text (Judges , though one must read everything from Joshua-Kings for the complete picture and context).In addition to major cities like Jericho and Hazor (Anchor's that nobody should ignore due to clear descriptions of burning) being destroyed in the same exact tight period (terminal-MBA of c.1550BCE), we can see that 3 of the 4 cities you have decided to use as disputing the Bibles Conquest-Judges texts ALSO were clearly destroyed in the exact same period.Thats just the issue of obvious burn destruction evidence.Population reduction (genocide) was evidenced everywhere in the terminal-MBA records. The only problems are coming from your posts.The fact that you single out Gezer demonstrates something rather shocking.Lets look at the 3 major Biblical periods: Conquest, Judges, and United Monarchy......Conquest.We have evidence in the archaeological record that it was severely attacked as Joshua describes.The Conquest evidence is backed up.Judges period.We have evidence from the archaeological record that the Judges period description of Gezer fighting off the Israelites right after the initial Conquest happened. (granted that after the short period post-Conquest,the Biblical text says nothing about Gezer for some 600 years so the Israelites could have retaken Gezer from time to time thogh I doubt it.Regardless, the Bible goes silent on Gezer for nearly 600 years till......)United MonarchySee the top of post #147 for the United Monarchy archaeological evidence of Gezer.Gezer is a unique city in that there is actually a burn destruction described during the reign of Solomon.The archaeological record fits and this is so obvious that mainstream literature cant help but get the dates and chronology 100% correct (usually not the case, especially in the Conquest-Judges period).If Gezer is your star-example that illustrates "problems" with my posts , then maybe I should wonder if 100% archaeological proof of precise Biblical historical texts isnt the standard but infact maybe 110% proof is somehow supposed to be reached?Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I note that you don't address the simple points I raised. Until you do that the rest is simply showing how you misrepresent the evidence.

quote:

---

I showed in post #147 that Gezer was also destroyed in that same exact time:the terminal-MBA period of c1550BCE.

---

Then, that is evidence against the conquest being in 1550 BC. Because as I pointed out Gezer was not listed as destroyed in Joshua - just conquered and enslaved.

quote:

---

Not only dont I ignore it, but infact the Joshua text ftting the archaeological record (see 147, at the VERY TOP for the specific Gezer evidence)

---

Yes, look at the message which makes absolutely no reference to9 Gezer's appearance n Joshua. The one that tries to imply that there is no mention before Judges. That "proves' that you aren't ignoring Joshua.And we all know that the only city listed as being burned is Hazor - and you haven't presented any evidence of burning there from your 1550 BC period.

(disclaimer)
I would take this issue further,but my best Amarna resources (Moran) are computer software (I may have references in print works, I need to check my 3 volume William Hallo Context Of Scripture plus I should check the ANE texts by Pritchard), but my computer CD drive no longer works and that combined with my data-loss problems prevents me from egtting the most up-to-date references. I may have some SBL texts to quote also.Anyway, forgive me for not referencing this unsourced quote but here is a roughly accurate Amarna(I found it on the internet)quote that I doubt needs much revision...... My point is actually not related to Gezer and Schechem, but infact related to Keilah and Lachish.We KNOW that Gezer and Shechem were described as being controled by Canaanites during the Judges period (Shechem throughout Judges is shown to be Canaanite controled whenever it is actually mentioned, Gezer was only mentioned right near the c1550 Conquest and not mentioned again for 600 years till the U. Monarchy).My point in quoting this is that alot can happen and the silence of Keilah and Lachish from the 1550 Joshua text till the Monarchy clearly does indicate that the Israelites could have lost control quite often (The Amarna period was c1350BCE).Like I said, it was near the Canaanite stronghold of Jerusalem.And even Jerusalem was defeated in the 1550 Conquest according to Joshua, though the rest of the Bible (starting with the later chapters of Joshua, then Judges, etc.)indicates that the Canaanites held control.However, we cant test Jerusalem in the archaeological record to check for evidence of Conquest though , since it is too populated (modern residents) for really comprehensive digs.We cn look for evidence of the cities around it being destroyed in the terminal-MBA Joshua Conquest though.And they very very clearly were.We can test Hazor and Gezer though (as well as a host of others, though these 2 are significant in that they were mentioned in Judges albeit briefly).And the test shows........The destructions,archaeological settlements, and details with regards to who controled these cities shows 100% harmony between the Bible and the archaeological record from Conquest-United Monarchy.We are simply left with few options.Either the Joshua-Kings (from c1550-c920 from Conquest through United Monarchy ) text is full of very precise and lucky guesses that fit every archaeological detail that can be tested, or else it is a stunningly accurate historical record.The former suggestion("lucky guesses in the Biblical text that fits all details by chance) is based on fantasy and wild-eyes speculation. The latter (the observed fit between the Biblical text and archaeology from 1550BCE -925BCE)is based on sound observation and uncompromising text-critical and historical-critical analysis.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

First of all , even Brian admits that we should expect burn destruction in far more cities (3 actually) than what Joshua describes , so the fact that there is burn destruction in more than Jericho & Hazor (Ai hasnt been located, plus it is a small city, so it is insignificant)doesnt disprove anything.AGAIN, Judges indicates (in the early chapters that you simply cant seem to grasp with any real control)that Jerusalem was burned but Joshua didnt mention thus.The reason is that initially it wasnt but in the following battles, it was.I ALMOST think that simple concept may have already proved itself to be WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY over your head by now (though I almost think you are just being overly difficult and stubborn on-purpose, infact I would bet on it).Ill get this issue of ignoring Gezer again later since you mentioned it more than once in your post.But now..... Here is (for the time, including twice in THIS THREAD!)the terminal-MBA Hazor archaeological evidence again.(as posted by Nimrod in #98) Your observational skills are truely amazing considering this initial post (#98)was right smack in-between a conversation between you an me on Hazor(!).The post (#98) was a reply to you post(#96) and you replied to it(#98)! I never ignored Gezer in Joshua (not in this thread, not in any thread, not ever).Even if I did then it really doesnt prove anything. The Bible's historical texts are a far larger issue than any alleged mistake (or omission) you claim I somehow made.I have commented on the Gezer destructions and Joshua text since I have been here.See the Edom thread from July which was my first ever thread.Check near the end (say a dozen or so posts before the end)of an exchange between me and Brian.

Yes let's illustrate the poitn.In message 140 you claimed: [qs] I meant that of the cities mentioned [in the Amarna Letters - PAK], only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering was not held by them during the Amarna period. [/quote]You now say that the Israelites "could have lost control as a reason why the Amarna Letters indicate that the cities discussed were NOT held by the Israelites. THis is a clear example of moving the goalposts. Instead of trying to make excuses, why not admit that you were wrong ?And we already knoww that the archaeological record does NOT show 100% harmony between the Bible and the historical records. The archaeology shows Gezer destroyed by fire - while there is no indication of this happening in Joshua

quote:

---

11:13 However, Israel did not burn any cities that stood on their mounds, except Hazor alone, which Joshua burned.

---

And where is the evidence that Hazor was burned at your preferred date for the Conquest ? WIthout that your claim is hollow.

quote:

---

We are simply left with few options.

---

And the correct option is that you misrepresent both the Bible and the evidence. The match is nowhere near as exact as you claim.

quote:

---

First of all , even Brian admits that we should expect burn destruction in far more cities (3 actually) than what Joshua describes

---

So even Brian "admits" that Joshua is inaaccurate on this point. I hate to break it to you, but you are the one insisting on absolute accuracy or Joshua - not Brian. So even YOU admit that Joshua is not entirely accurate.

quote:

---

AGAIN, Judges indicates (in the early chapters that you simply cant seem to grasp with any real control)that Jerusalem was burned but Joshua didnt mention thus

---

Joshua didn't mention it because it happened AFTER Joshua's death. So it wans't burned as part of Joshua's conquest, but decades later. But you put the burning of Gezer as part of Joshua's conquest. Moreover there is no mention of Gezer being burned in Judges either.And there's no need to criticse me for reading the Bible instead of assuming that it says what you want.

quote:

---

I never ignored Gezer in Joshua (not in this thread, not in any thread, not ever)

---

SInce I know that you did, protests to the contrary do not work.

See post #157 or #98.Or many other posts I have made in Edom thread.Joshua 11:13 was very early in the Conquest.A snapshot in time.If Canaanite survived then battles would continue for quite some time. Infact the Judges period show that nearly 150-180 (say c1400BCE accoring to biblical chronology) years after Hazor was burnt, there was another battle between the Israelites and Hazor.The archaeological situation shows that Hazor continued as a Canaanite city till about c1300BCE (it was destroyed again) then the settlement is so thin that archaeologists cant tell if it was abandoned for 200 years and then small artifacts appeared, or if the artifacts appeared sooner.It wasnt rebuilt till the monarchy period in archaeology and the Bible.It fits the Biblical records.In all details.100% consistent.But with regards to your claim that there shouldnt be burn destructions in cities conquered by the Israelites (aside from those destructions mentioned EARLY in the Conquest), I can sssure you that looting and vandalism happens.Plus the canaanites survived in many of these places.So battles would continue on right from & after the initial campaign (Read the first 3 chapters of Judges). Not at all.I said that the Canaanites survived in the towns the Bible mentions. That is the SIMPLE part that doesnt need qualification.The issue you dispute is the issue of cities the Israelites held.You have managed to totally ignore the complex situation (as well as all the archaeological details of highland-Palestine)and claim that the Israelite's loosing a few cities they once held somehow contradicts Joshua and Judges.You even have used Gezer and Shechem as examples though the textual analysis (as time as simple as reading a single line,like the gezer situation)shows it was canaanite controled though perhaps with israelite's also living near-by.See post #147.Plus see posts between #147 and this one.The larger issue is whether cities saw the Canaanite population (represented by sedentary occupation) severaly reduce in the areas the Bible indicates.See posts 108, 135, and 136. Except the few tiny examples of "misrepresent"ations you have offered have proven to be selective quote-mining that ignores the entirety of what I actually said.And what I have always said.The match is quite "exact" by any reasonable standards.

Talk about selective reading!Now you admit that Judges chapter 1(where the Jerusalem burning is mentioned)came perhaps "decades later" than "Joshua's conquest"!That is the exact same chapter Gezer is described as having Canaanites hold their prescence! (Judges 1 is perhaps "decades" after the Joshua battles like you say, though I feel it could have been only a few years if even that)Gezer was conquered (now we go back to JOSHUA for the conquering of Gezer) before Jerusalem was mentioned as being held by Canaanites (in the Judges chapter 1, though we can also look at Joshua chapter 15- either one destroys your contradiction argument)!We may be getting somewhere (albeit in an odd way). No,Brian understands that the argument that we should only expect destruction in a few cities mentioned (usually made by apologetics who want to slip the Conquest into a period with little-no highland Palestinian destructions)totally ignores the realities of wars and especially the Joshua complete-destruction wars. I would find specific 7 month old quotes in the Edom thread, but then I would totally slay one of your few remainning obsessions (as if I havnt already)that you simply cant drop because all we would be left with are the archaeological facts (ie the actual issue).And those facts back the Bible up in every way.As I have shown.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Except the few tiny examples of "misrepresent"ations you have offered have proven to be selective quote-mining that ignores the entirety of what I actually said.And what I have always said.

---

That is a complete falsehood. What you mean is that you try to pretend that you said something other than you said.There really isn't any point in continuing. I suppsoe I should have realised that when you tried to defend the claim that cities were under Israelite control by arguing that the Canaanites had taken them back !What more is there to say after that ?

..evidence.Judges describes many cities as being Canaanite held.Even ones that the Israelites defeared.Including Gezer, which you keep obsessing over.You can keep ignoring the total picture and situation.I almost think your endless posts are simply meant to dilute the substance of the evidence I offered.

No, I haven't ignored the evidence and I'm not about to start. However much you want me to.

....so this endless GOTCHA b.s. can finally end. (One person who went the GOTCHA road earlier only ended up with egg all over his face, so it's too bad I have to egg PaulK in the face also.I actually appreciated some of his earlier posts till he bankrupted with regards to any substantive contributions.....now it seems he has decided to go the GOTCHA road which is sadly bordering on slander.) Like I had to do earlier, I simply must go back to LONG AGO posts I typed.From post 116 (last edited 6:55 AM 1-23-07) Later in post #116, while quoting scholars discussing Amarna details, I posted comments of my own inbetween the references. PaulK LATER (we did not discuss these Amarna issues at the point of post #116)would catch me make a clear typo (its easy to quote-mine a person when they are stuck in the middle of dozens of hostile posts in fishing-expeditions)while I was in-between several tit for tat B.S. situations. (they started after #93 and ended soon after 116, then PaulK started in #137 what I THOUGHT might have been a somewhat worthy exchange, though time has proven it to be just a fishing expedition of GOTCHA quote-mining)The constant back and fourth by PaulK & myself resulted in me making ONE sloppy comment (clearly a typo/mis-statement)in #138, which I quickly corrected (see 140) because paulK pointed the mistake out.That was all fine on PaulK's part.Every post I made before and after CLEARLY indicated that I was not in any, way, shape, or form ducking the issue of SOME Conquest cities described as being held by Israelites in c1550(like Lachish and I later found out Keilah, thanks to PaulK)being lost somwehere along the way to the monarchy.So far so good.Now here is the BIG problem with PaulK's tactics......PaulK clearly has noticed that I have been 100% consistent from the start and every archaeological detail (including Amarna texts and all texts)has fit in the the Bible, as I have pointed out.He has decided to milk my typo's and few mis-statements (made long ago too, I have since clarified way beyond what is reasonable) for WAY more than they may have been worth (which wasnt much,if hardly anything, to begin with)and he just wont quit.I am calling him for his questionable (Im being kind) conduct.He has made some positive contributions (for sure) but his refusal to move on after being proven wrong seems to somehow be forcing him to resort to dishonest smears as a last resort.I regret that it has come to this.But his message #162 is about the last straw,and hopefully is IS THE LAST time this "you try to say something other than you said" comes up with regards to the Amarna cities like Lachish and Keilah (as well as Shechem and Gezer).not only is is 100% false but even if I did hold the position he accuses me of (I did not!) then it misses the actual point:the archaeological data.My posts 147, 152, 156, and 157 present the data (147 and 152 were very clear by themselves)specific to its relevence and he has no reason to dwell on past mistakes (especially when it is, again, "borderline slander" as I regretfully said with a sigh above)