Dear Brian:
It is absolutely true that Professor Humble said it may be Hittite art. But is Professor Humble alone in his estimation? According to Professor Humble, absolutely not. I think you are being very selective in your response to the website information. Please read the quotes below from this website:
http://www.knls.org/English/trascripts/humble03.htm
"The Israel Museum has labeled the relief Hittite art."
Here is the specific Museum plus information where the artifact was discovered:
"I’ve visited the Israel Museum in Jerusalem many times, and I have often stopped to look at a relief carved in stone that was discovered at Beth Shan, about 20 miles south of the Sea of Galilee."
Plus you fail to give the reasons why Professor Humble is of the opinion of why it is Hittite art:
"Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite city of Hattusas in Turkey, and now we know that the Hittites were a powerful people around 1500 BC. But back to the stone relief of the lion and dog. Remember that it was discovered at Beth Shan near the Sea of Galilee and goes back to about 1700 BC. And it may be Hittite art. It looks very much like Hittite relief's that I have seen in the museums in Istanbul and Ankara. And lions are often pictured in Hittite art."
And again, according to Professor humble the Israel Museum in Jerusalem concurs:
"The Israel Museum has labeled the relief Hittite art."
I just see your response as more indication that you do not want to address information that is contrary to your stated views. It comes to no surprise to me that it is reflected in the type of research you did.
Lastly, I see these as strawman:
"To suggest that archaeology is used by itself to undermine the bible is a misrepresentation of the facts."
Because of what I said later:
"The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia states that the scholars Lehman and and Tucker "detected traces of Hittite real estate procedure in the transaction between Ephron and Abraham" (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Moody Press, 1983, page 800)."
I believe the above section of my post at least partly deals with textual analysis in regards to scholars.
Here is the second strawman:
"The archaeological evidence in relation to the Hittites of Boghazkoy is not fragmentary,"
I never said it was fragmentary. There is a lot of data in Turkey for example. I was pointing to the possible migration and possible existence in Palestine as far as the fragmentary nature of archeology in many cases. I also clearly gave evidence which you never found due to the type of research efforts you made.
Also, Wycliffe gives diverse views regarding the presence of Indo European Hittites in Palestine. I clearly said this.
I do agree with this statement though:
"So, while your source may well be correct in his estimation of the percentage of possible archaeological sites,"
If you want to know where his 2% figure comes from then I suggest regarding the sources given in the authors endnotes or you can write to office@imja.com .
Lastly, Re: "I have no idea why Forrer arrives at this conclusion, I have no idea what particular inscription you are talking about or what it says. These are the sort of things that you need to present in your argument, if you do not have the explanation of why Forrer comes to his conclusions you could at least provide bibliographical details so I can have a look for myself. Do you even know Forrer's Christian name?"
Please use the endnotes the website author provided.
SUMMARY
I see a lack of willingness to address the information I provided. I think the total avoidance of the Israel Musuem in Jersusalem concurring opinion according to Professor Humble is great evidence of this. I offer no further commentary as the author of the string is posting a voluminous response without really truly addressing what I posted plus he is setting up strawmen.
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]