Anyone making this claim for Hezekiah's tunnel olny expose themselves as sponges that soak up anything that even remotely support their case, personal research isn't even a factor in their world.
That seems like an excessive generalization. While I agree that conclusions should be in all cases tentative and open to further evidence, those who draw reasoned conclusions from a preponderance of evidence hardly warrant such an epithet.
I have to emphasise again that this could be support for Hezekiah's tunnel, but there are doubts so it should not be stated categorically that the Bible is correct here.
Given:
Modern radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem shows that it was excavated about 700 years before the Common Era, and can thus be safely attributed to the Judean King Hezekiah. This is the first time that a structure mentioned in the Bible (Kings II 20:20; Chronicles II 32:3, 4) has been radiometrically dated.
A report on the study of the Siloam Tunnel will be published on Sept. 11 in the scientific journal Nature. ...
The presumption that King Hezekiah constructed the Siloam Tunnel was based until today upon the Biblical text itself and the characteristics of the Siloam inscription (located in a museum in Istanbul), although the inscription does not say who constructed the tunnel. The new findings refute a recent claim that suggested a much later date for the tunnel.
- see
Dating of King Hezekiah's Tunnel verified by scientists
I am curious as to the basis for, and weight to be given to, these doubts.
[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 10-19-2003]