Bible Archaeology - An introduction

What exactly have you learned from the links Buz, is it the same as I have, that Bible inerrantists know bugger all about archaeology? Or is it that you are happy for morons to misrepresent the stances taken by the people quoted?Bottom line, the links from Ken in regard to the Bible and archaeology only prove that the webmasters know NOTHING about archaeology. What you should be asking yourself is this: Why am I allowing these people to misrespresent the Bible?Good God Buz, for the love of Christ will you start using your brain?Brian.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

Why not you pick something from it that you choose to respond to?

---

Alright. Let's start with this:

quote:

---

Pithom and Raamses:

​

The book of Exodus tells how the Egyptians forced their Israelite slaves to build these two storage cities, yet the critics said it was a fable for children. But archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie discovered the site of these cities and found that the buildings were the only ones in Egypt built with mortar. Interestingly enough, the lowest levels of the building were built with brick and straw, the next levels were built with bricks and stubble, and the upper layers were built with no straw or stubble at all! A perfect parallel to the biblical account.

---

Rather than pointing to an isolated situation and jumping to conclusions, in order for this to be a "perfect parallel...", it must be consistent with other archaeological indications.Therefore, my questions: When do you think these cities were built and, based on this, what was the date of the exodus? These dates can be approximate, but if you can't determine a reasonable date, then this is not a "perfect parallel" to anything.Namaste'Amlodhi

Dear Buzzsaw:I have not had a chance to look at all of the resources at this website regarding Bible archeology but it does look pretty good so far even though I have only looked at a few links he offers. The owner of the site appears to be having some family health problems (if memory serves) so he might not have updated it in several months. Here is the website and I think you will enjoy it:http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/...archaeology.htmlSincerely,Ken

Hi Ken,Hope you are getting ready to answer my "yes or no" question regarding thermodynamics in the other thread.See you there.

To: BuzzsawHere is something that someone wrote to me and others that I thought might be helful to you:"Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, has just recently come out with a massive new work on the Old Testament. This well-regarded Egyptologist is one of the top maximalists who contends for a high view of the Old Testament and its historicity. I have just ordered On the Reliability of the Old Testament and will make my own comments on it in the future.....I am really looking forward to receiving it in the mail soon. If you go to scholarsbookshelf.com you can order it for an incredibly reduced price, down to $15 instead of 45. With taxes and shipping it came out to $20.45 total. That's way better than Amazon's markdown price of 31 (pre-shipping)..........James K. Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition."TO: BrianI believe a certain Bible inerrantist on this board has demonstrated that your assertions in regards to archeology may not always be the gospel truth (see: http://EvC Forum: The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth. -->EvC Forum: The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth.)I am certainly not saying you don't know anything about Bible archeology. I am saying, however, that your certainly not a skeptical pope whose proclamations are infallible when you speak "ex EVC Forum". I certainly think they can and should be questioned in certain instances.

buzsaw & kendemyer,In Re: Post #17 above.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buzsaw:
Why not you pick something from it that you choose to respond to?

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amlodhi:
Alright. Let's start with this:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pithom and Raamses:

---

kendemyer, it was your weblink. buzsaw, it was your suggestion.Are either of you ever going to follow up on this?P.S. kendemyer, I don't take homework assignments. I'm requesting your (and buzsaw's) opinion(s) in order to know the specific archaeology period(s) with which to compare this event. The answer to my questions in post #17 should require no more than 1 or 2 sentences. Both of you either have an answer or you don't. We shall soon find out which it is.Amlodhi

If only Ron Wyatt hadn't gone and died, I bet he would have found more than enough evidence to support Pithom and Rameses being.......Nah, I will leave it for Buz and Ken to discover for themselves.Brian.

quote:

---

Brian

​

If only Ron Wyatt hadn't gone and died . . .

---

Indeed, that was a dark day for Muddville. There is little doubt that Mr. Wyatt would soon have uncovered the mummified body of the president of the Allied Hebrew Mudbrick Workers Union (AHMWU), local 349, at Rameses with a copy of the contract negotiations still clutched in his grisly hand.Alas and alack,Amlodhi

To: AmlodhiI am just about to leave to go somewhere but I did not want to leave you stranded. Do a search on Rohl and chronology on the internet. That should give you one source of scholarship to support the Biblical account. Secondly, there is a introductory work in the genre of Christian apologetics called The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell that covers your question in more detail. I am sorry I cannot give give you a page number in regards to Mc Dowells book but most if not all the major bookstores and all the Christian bookstores carry this book. I would also recommend the book I just recommended to Buzzsaw in a previous post.I hope this helps you out.Sincerely,Ken

Rohl is not a reliable source. He sees that the earlier Biblical Archaeologists fell into the trap of jumping to conclusions that agreed with the Biblical accounts - and then does exactly the same thing himself. A staue had a multi-coloured robe ? It must be Joseph. An Egyptian style building in ancient Jerusalem ? It must have been built for the Pharoah's daughter Solomon married.

kendemyer,Read my lips: "I don't take homework assignments."I own and have read cover to cover McDowell's book (the fully updated edition), as well as most other apologist literature.Get a clue: "I'm not looking for a teacher."I'm looking to get you to commit yourself on a date for the exodus; which you are apparently scared sh*tless to do.Amlodhi

To: AmlodhiI take the early date for the Exodus position, namely, 1446 B.C.TO: Buzzsaw and othersHere are two links that supports the early date:#1 Tech - Internet and Technology News BlogThe page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Sincerely,KenSincererly,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-14-2004]

quote:

---

kendemyer

​

I take the early date for the Exodus position, namely, 1446 B.C.

---

Excellent. Good answer.You opened this topic and buzsaw suggested that I pick one specific reference from your mulitple links to discuss. That does narrow the field some but, in addition, I see no good purpose in discussing various chronologies which you may not even be advocating.Thus:1) Exodus c. 14462) Since you recommended Rohl, we have Dudimose I as pharaoh of the exodus.3) Fall of Jericho c. 14004) Amarna period contemporary with the united monarchy.5) Rameses II contemporary with Solomon.Does this accurately reflect your position? Can I rest assured that we are solid on this?Namaste'Amlodhi

From Ken's second link: In reality, all the accredited Palestinian artifactual evidence proves that there never was a unified military conquest of Canaan regardless of which biblical date is presented.The page linked to is so poorly written that it is not clear which Waltke book is referenced, but this quote could be 50 years old! Of course there have been no excavations in Palestine since then, so this quote must still be true.Why do these clowns never read the current literature?Another blunder is: This is simply untrue. The 'Israel' on the Mernatpah Stele MAY not even be the Israel from the Hebrew Bible, the word 'Israel' on the Stele does not have to be translated as 'Israel' at all, it could be translated as 'Jezreel' for example.As for 'already settled in Canaan' claim, the Stele actually suggests the complete opposite. The heiroglyph preceding 'Israel' on the Stele is the determinative for a people and not for a land, so the 'Israel' referred to in the stele had not settled in Canaan at all. So the Stele (commemorating a victory of 1205 BCE) indicates a late date if anything, because the Israelites would surely have been settled in Canaan by this time if they had left Egypt over 240 years previously.Brian.

Double post![This message has been edited by Brian, 03-16-2004]