Knightley Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html I think its a joke. Anyone else, anyone? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 How could a book that's not in any way based on some reality be believed by anyone for as long as the bible has? When they find the proof that the miracles of the bible happens, then this archaeological shit might mean shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 I think that the Bible might be a history of the 'thinking' of the people of the time, as they knew it to be. It is certainly one sided by those doing the writing. Of course, we see that now with our own standards of evaluation of things in modern news broadcasts. I think it has some merit of what was the mindset of their days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html I think its a joke. Anyone else, anyone? Bueller? Yes, it is a joke. No one's ever claimed that the 'real' parts of the bible (i.e., accounts of wars, kings, socio/political events) are all bullshit. Obviously some things were based in reality and some things were based on religious fantasy or folk tales. Just because a war mentioned in an OT book has some corroborating proof means nothing as to the fantastical claims of the bible. It would be like saying, "Look, we found an old farmhouse in Kansas that was destroyed by a tornado! That proves Oz really exists!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Yes, it is a joke. No one's ever claimed that the 'real' parts of the bible (i.e., accounts of wars, kings, socio/political events) are all bullshit. Obviously some things were based in reality and some things were based on religious fantasy or folk tales. Just because a war mentioned in an OT book has some corroborating proof means nothing as to the fantastical claims of the bible. It would be like saying, "Look, we found an old farmhouse in Kansas that was destroyed by a tornado! That proves Oz really exists!" Exactly. To the fundie with its typically three active brain cells, there is only the either-or option. Black or white. Good or evil. 100 % true or 100 % false. No middle ground. Thus, if fundie brat finds something in da wholly babble that's true, the book is obviously not 100 % false, yup... but being a fundie, it immediately embraces the "logical" conclusion that it must therefore be 100 % true 6L()RY 7() 64\/\/|)!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html I think its a joke. Anyone else, anyone? Bueller? Which? Biblical archeology and/or this particular website? I have no real problem with biblical archeology. Anything that helps move the field along in a constructive way, even if there's an agenda behind it, really doesn't present a problem to me. Now, this website on the other hand. They take good research and twist it to fit their agenda. They presuppose their view and that's that. Under the section where outside sources support the biblical finds they mention the Sumerian texts having all these similar stories to the bible...but they conveniently "forget" that the Sumerian sources had them LONG before. They presuppose the bible stories into first place. Sad. They also try to show how great the bible is because it had the names of some kings before it was confirmed by a second source. They mention the book of Daniel. It just so happens I've been preoccupied with Daniel for the past few days for no reason (maybe "god" led me to it? ) and that "accuracy" they point out is sadly surrounded by many errors. The website mentions Nabonidus was the last king of Babylonia, and Belshazzar's father, which is true. Too bad Daniel wrote it was Nebuchadrezzar (no wonder Belshazzar didn't change his ways...if Daniel had no clue who his father was how could he be trusted to interpret the writing on the wall?). Daniel also reports that Belshazzar's father (Nabonidus) turned to Daniel's god before he died but all current evidence shows that Nabonidus was a follower of Zoroaster his entire life (maybe it was a death bed conversion...xians love those...just look at Constantine). On a side note for all the folks out there. Daniel is often used with Revelation to point to the end times as it mentions "the Messiah." Turns out that King Cyrus is the only gentile in history ever to be named a Messiah by the Jews. So when the book speaks of the Messiah it is referring to King Cyrus and not some unknown future Messiah (aka jesus). So that's the little fun fact of the day for you that no xians will speak of or likely are even aware of. The "prophecies" are basically about Alexender the Great and later Antiochus Epiphanes and have long been "fulfilled." As usual I wondered off topic. Oh well. Hopefully someone learned a little something at least. I don't think it's really a bad thing. Look at what really happened in Israel. They went looking for evidence of the exodus and have proven that Israelites instead came from Canaan. Oops. With people like Israel Finkelstein doing the research they have pretty much killed off most of the history of the bible prior to the story of David and even then it hangs by a thread (three very thin pieces of evidence last I heard and zero for Solomon). Essentially, Israel was nothing but tent dwellers until maybe around 1000BC (just guessing at the date...I'd really have to check to be sure) which is when the Davidic line of kings should have been going strong with David and/or Solomon but there was nothing of significance. It's not until several hundred years later that anything of substance appears, and even at the website you can see this. Sure they mention ancient cities from the exodus days but it has been shown that they were long destroyed by the time any Hebrews arrived on the scene. So the biblical research may prove the places and things but it's also like a virus eating the organism from the inside out. The problem is the Jews have mainly adapted to this by switching to a more allegorical view of their history (prior to David...David is still a main character in their history and I doubt they will let him go even if he's just a king of tent people) but xians refuse to do so. They literally hide and twist the truth and websites like the one shown prove this fact. Even documentaries on television, that I have seen, that are "brave" enough to reveal the "truth" are always careful to add disclamers amounting to "but you never know" when it comes to xian myths but never when it comes to anyone else's belief systems (okay, maybe Islam but it's only so they won't be attacked or to avoid riots). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html I think its a joke. Anyone else, anyone? Bueller? I found a great joke on that site this joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I found a great joke on that site this joke It would be funny, if this site was atheist.net . Some people still believe in a god and that this being helped form life, so it's not really funny now is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Helmet Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html I think its a joke. Anyone else, anyone? Bueller? I found a great joke on that site this joke I couldn't make it through half of the page without jumping out of my seat. It would be funny as hell if it was a five year old presenting it, but we're talking about (supposedly) rational adults... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawu Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 How could a book that's not in any way based on some reality be believed by anyone for as long as the bible has? When they find the proof that the miracles of the bible happens, then this archaeological shit might mean shit. It's very simple, all human beings are born ignorant, without memory or history, so they look to find their place in the world and a history for themselves. If we lived in those more primitive times, many of us here would be similarly ignorant, remember wealth and background of your parents determines what kind of resources you have books, language, and other resources you have available. Many people are also lazy or are too busy living their lives to question what they believe, or rather live in their delusion. I don't think people fully realize all the knowledge, technology, transportation and other resources that they have today that peoples of the past didn't have at all which effects how much a person grows and develops in knowledge. We in the modern world take our years of schooling for granted, many places in the world in the past had other problems that effected such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangstaknitta Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 This kind of "scientific" bullshit just kills me. Here's the problem with "biblical archaeology"--generally speaking: this field is regarded somewhat as the small, club-footed, mentally-challenged, perhaps with a touch of ADD step-child of archaeology. Their fatal flaw: they decide before they go into the field what they want to find. They make the recovered material goods fit into their theory, which is just horrid methodology. So any piece of a fucking boat or stupid "shroud" or anything and *poof* OMGJEEBUSTOTALLYEXISTED!!! or THEBIBLEISTRUE!!!!! It's very difficult to work in biblical archaeology without having any kind of "agenda"--because most of them do. And on a completely personal note, most of my experience with bib. archs. has left me walking away thinking that they are self-righteous assfaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Biblical archaeology uses the same tools and methods of the rest of archaeology, uncover the same facts but they do try their best to mash their findings into their biblical grids. They accept contradictions in the bible but still try to prove the validity of the major "historical" stories after the "Primeval History" of Genesis 1-11. A good example of this is Bernard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament. Alot of them, like Will Dever at a talk I saw him do, insist that "postmodernists" are trying to "revise" biblical history and that the Bible is "more often than not" historically correct. But honestly, alot of these Biblical archaeologists are not evangelicals. They are usually mainline protestants who are trying to prove some historical validity of their faith among many (pluralism) and they generally don't try to prove the miracle stories anymore (except for the kooks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Now, this website on the other hand. They take good research and twist it to fit their agenda. They presuppose their view and that's that. and you don't think people on the other side do the same? i would say most scholars have a preconcieved notion that they are trying to validate. On a side note for all the folks out there. Daniel is often used with Revelation to point to the end times as it mentions "the Messiah." Turns out that King Cyrus is the only gentile in history ever to be named a Messiah by the Jews. So when the book speaks of the Messiah it is referring to King Cyrus and not some unknown future Messiah (aka jesus). So that's the little fun fact of the day for you that no xians will speak of or likely are even aware of. The "prophecies" are basically about Alexender the Great and later Antiochus Epiphanes and have long been "fulfilled." mwc do you have a link to this, i would like to read it. many people use the proficies from daniel for the messiah. very informative, thank you for the side note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Isaiah 45:1 claims that Cyrus is the Messiah. KJV says: "Thus says the Lord to his annointed Cyrus..." the word "annointed" here is the same word which is often translated "Messiah." Also: Three great books I can recommend in biblical archaeology: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman (Israeli archaeologists) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts Gosta Ahlstrom's The History of Ancient Palestine is straight Near Eastern archaeology... no Bible allowed as a matter of methodology. and John Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller's The History of Israel and Judah a good link on the authorship of Daniel: http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/daniel.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 and you don't think people on the other side do the same? i would say most scholars have a preconcieved notion that they are trying to validate. Some more than others. The site in question is simply a propaganga site plain and simple. If you want something a little more "balanced" I'd say try http://www.bib-arch.org/ for an example of that. When you compare the two I'm sure you'll see the difference. [stuff quoting me about Daniel's prophecies deleted] do you have a link to this, i would like to read it. many people use the proficies from daniel for the messiah. very informative, thank you for the side note. Crunk Bishop offers some help in his reply. You can read up some on Cyrus at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...51&letter=C although I don't think it talks about Daniel at that link. It looks like they do mention him here http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...34&letter=D but I only skimmed the entry. I came to my own conclusions about the prophecies by reading them and trying to find a logical answer for them as opposed to the party line awhile back. I don't recall why I started doing this (I think it was something I saw on TV) but after all the reading I had done something just didn't seem right and the new interpretation I came up with fit so much better. Turns out I am far from the first person to see it this way but since the world didn't end or come into eternal peace the prophecy needs to be "reinterpreted" until this actually happens. Unfortunately, it becomes more and more strained. Eusebius (sp?) laughed off the idea of all this and said the end times would happen at the end of the Roman Empire (and had a whole spiel about it) but that never happened...so the timeline was extended by those that came later and here we are nearly 1500 years later still extending that timeline. It's silly. Daniel was about the times of Antiochus IV and the Maccabees and the Revelation of John was about the fall of Rome at the end of the 1st century (when people thought Nero would return). Both have passed without incident. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 yep, i got my bawls busted in a freshman religion course over Daniel back when I was 17. spent a week writing "the greatest paper" and when trying to prove Daniel's "authentic" provenance I referred to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, in which he says that when Alexander came to Jerusalem during his conquests one of the high priest ran out of the Temple with the Daniel scroll and told Alexander "lookie, you're right here in our prophecy." Turns out, as my prof pointed out and I've learned later, Josephus lied about Alexander ever having visited Jerusalem in the first place. So, I guess that was my start in unravelling the "bible prophecy" sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 What's wrong with Biblical archeology? It is an uncovering of our history, of our very own decendents. We are who we are because they were who they were. Understanding where we are sometimes means understanding from where we came. Just to present the evidence may speak volumes on its own, and understanding how history relating the Bible can evolve in its progression of spin could perhaps allow us to be more careful to avoid continuing these self serving methods. Do we have to think EVERYTHING they did back then was bad? It seems like every generation struggles with the ever changing dynamics around them the best they can, and who are we to pass condescending judgement? I'd like to focus on the good they tried to assert for the prosperity of future generations. Did they do everything perfect? No. Did they do the best they knew how to do? Yes. It seems to me that basically a bunch of savage oriented people stopped their nomadic lifestyle, changed from a mode of constant survival threats to having time to ponder life's situations. Heck, most of them initially lived in 'camps'. They tried their best to establish a civil community, civilization. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, some were able to reach self actualization and behold a concept of what they called sacred amongst all mankind. IMO, it's amazing we have what we have, considering writing didn't start till 3000 BCE, and it started for inventory purposes. Sure the Bible is prejudice to favoring the 'people' telling the stories and passing it down. That is why we ought to study other philosophies and hold onto reason, right? However, don't you think the Bible archeology still holds valuable a 'piece' of the puzzle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 it's not that i hate the past by hating biblical archaeology.... when I refer to "biblical archaeology," i'm speaking of those who use the Bible as the archeaological premise for their interpretations rather than using the actual stuff they find on the ground. Most biblical archaeologists (a.k.a. "the Albright School") think that proving the bible to be correct "historically" through the archaeological record will also "prove" the correctness of the theological and moral claims they believe the bible to be making in their religious traditions. Unfortunately, the bulk of non-biblical archaeology has similar problems with political agendas... "who settled here first?" and such... i love archaeology, especially from the "biblical" and "classical" periods, but could do without the theological agenda in biblical archaeology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 it's not that i hate the past by hating biblical archaeology.... when I refer to "biblical archaeology," i'm speaking of those who use the Bible as the archeaological premise for their interpretations rather than using the actual stuff they find on the ground. Most biblical archaeologists (a.k.a. "the Albright School") think that proving the bible to be correct "historically" through the archaeological record will also "prove" the correctness of the theological and moral claims they believe the bible to be making in their religious traditions. Unfortunately, the bulk of non-biblical archaeology has similar problems with political agendas... "who settled here first?" and such... i love archaeology, especially from the "biblical" and "classical" periods, but could do without the theological agenda in biblical archaeology. Crunk Bishop, I think if we can truly explore these aspects within other substantiating resources, open mindedly, then we can perhaps find some of what it was initially really like back then. It seems the hijacking of these teachings for personal agendas are worse than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Using what we can unearth, with modern day reasoning, maybe we will find a rudimentary group of people that started a journey to embody what we may hold sacred for all of mankind, rendering a spirit in these regards... much like our patriotic spirit, only a holy spirit. IMO, it seems like a process of going from being subjected to these Gods' whims, to interrelating with the Gods, to determining there is but one God, and then we too are gods, to all things are part of God. It seems to me to be a very self empowering process and one that lends the rise to more of a spiritual Atheism approach to a great degree. However, IMO, labels can be so confusing. Do you know anything about the Sumerians? What is interesting to me, is that they were so progressive... other than human scarifices to their gods. They are said to have known the earth was round BCE, by the understanding of the lunar eclipse being the shadow of the earth on the moon. Their astronomy knowledge is very impressive! They are also the first ones known to use writing, first for inventory, then refining it to characters for words. Sumerians are also said to have been the ones to have invented the wheel! Their archetecture is reknown, and I think they may be the ones that did the Babylonian Gardens! Then about 200-300 CE they just siezed to exist. It's amazing to me that their culture faded out and how many of the others are still here. Do you think a 'religion' perceived to be the strongest played a bigger part in the survival of a group of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 yep, i got my bawls busted in a freshman religion course over Daniel back when I was 17. spent a week writing "the greatest paper" and when trying to prove Daniel's "authentic" provenance I referred to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, in which he says that when Alexander came to Jerusalem during his conquests one of the high priest ran out of the Temple with the Daniel scroll and told Alexander "lookie, you're right here in our prophecy." Turns out, as my prof pointed out and I've learned later, Josephus lied about Alexander ever having visited Jerusalem in the first place. So, I guess that was my start in unravelling the "bible prophecy" sham. Hey. What's that high priest doing looking at a scroll that's supposed to be put away until the end times? I guess you can't blame Josephus though. I'm sure the "history" as he knew it was that Alexander came there. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 yeah, the Sumerians were great an we've learned alot about them... too bad we can't learn more now because of all the crap going down in Iraq. the Sumerians lost their influence around 2000 BCE when a group of people called the "Amorites" moved in from the Arabian Pennisula and "squatted" in Sumerian lands... just so many Amorites that Sumerian culture disappeared.. peaceable "conquest" without an invasion. to me, the study of ancient people offers light into our own modern religions, explains the origins of many of our practices and beliefs, but most importantly shows us that religious beliefs are "historically constructed" or fabricated by whoever is in power. once again, i have no problem with general archaeology done on the biblical period. i just hate it when people are trolling Mt. Ararat looking for "Noah's Ark" only because they read about it in the Bible. You shouldn't use the Bible as a treasure map, and you can't use archaeology to prove the "truth" of a religious tradition. or here's a better example for what passes in "biblical archaeology:" the so-called "Jesus Boat." Back in 1986 in northern Israel, they found a well-preserved boat which they carbon dated to the first century CE... the times of Jesus. Sure, Jesus was alive and in Galilee at the time. Sure he hung out with fishermen. But does that mean that he was in that actual boat??? So they start calling it "the Jesus Boat" and begin speculating that maybe "13" people could fit in it (Jesus and the 12?) and they start talking about the Gospels and Jesus' teachings...etc... when all they really did was find a boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 What's wrong with Biblical archeology? It is an uncovering of our history, of our very own decendents. ... Do we have to think EVERYTHING they did back then was bad? I think you misunderstand what Biblical archeology is and the problems with it. No one has a problem with taking the bible as a possible historical source. So you open up the bible and read a story and wonder if that is something that is real or not (and if so is this account accurate and to what degree). You then investigate with an open mind. Maybe you find nothing. Maybe you find something that exceeds your expectations or you find something in the middle. Who knows? You don't really have any firm "goal" in mind (so the word "expectations" above isn't really the best term to use). However, in what I guess what you would call traditional Biblical Archeology the bible is true. You read the story. You go into the field and you find what is in the bible whether or not that is what you actually pull out of the ground. Somehow you make the "facts" fit the story. If you can't do it then you still find a way to do it. It's really dishonest work. This is why "traditional" Biblical Archeology is becoming a thing of the past. It just wasn't sustainable. These people marched into the desert thinking they would dig around and the stories of the bible would just "pop" out of the ground like magic. In dig after dig that just failed to happen. In fact the opposite occured. The more they dug the more the actually disproved their own stories and they knew it. So the propaganda machines went into action but when real scientists went to work there was no hiding the truth and it all fell apart. Now there are some honest people in the field that are just being proven wrong. That's just the way it is. It has to do with the people they work for and their "zeal." Like (I forget her name) who recently declared to have located David's Palace. There's no evidence of it being David's Palace. It has evidence of being in the right period and it has the names of biblical characters within it but beyond that the declaration is premature and irresponsible. It is an important find but the fact remains that there is zero evidence linking it to David and trying to filter it through the bible to make this connection is a bad thing to do (which is what biblical archeologists try to do instead of letting the evidence make the link). Maybe she'll get lucky and find that one thing that ties it to David but it's not looking too good. Like many people, as long as the Muslims are perched atop the Temple Mount, there's always hope that there's proof of Solomon sitting just out of reach (not too likely though...but I could always be wrong...but based on the biblical description his kingdom and lack of evidence elsewhere I would be surprised). There's also the guy I just read about who was working at Meggido (sp?) with, I think, Finklestein. Not only does Finkelstein want to redate the site from ~1000BC to about ~800BC (which will cause a huge fight since I believe this is a type site and will remove Solomon from history but since since David can't be shown to exist and the city isn't "proof" anyway...anyhow...) but the work this guy was involved with shows that what the bible records in Kings may actually be an understatement in many ways and that the power of the rulers may have actually been greater. So far their work shows they would have had more, and far powerful horses than what the bible tells in that area. It appears the person who wrote the book didn't think much of the rulers and downplayed their importance if their initial findings turn out to be correct. It appears, based on this and other evidence, that the true story of Israel (as a nation), really begins around 800BC (which is another reason I'd be surprised if any evidence of Solomon, at least a biblical version, existed). So I've wandered on again but my point was to show, and provide examples, that there are people that do use the bible to do their work and it's simply how they use the bible in their work is what matters. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 mwc/crunk bishop thank you for the links, will check them out. i understand what you are saying, trying to make stuff found fit into biblical history. but i would think it perfectly fine, if they found david's temple, there was no evidence at the site it was david. but if it was built just like how the bible describes it, or had certian detials as described in the bible. wouldn't that be significant. i am not saying to use it as a treasure map. but maybe as a resource. the thing about the Jesus boat. now that is just rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunk Bishop Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 i think you've cleared up what i was trying to say very nicely, mwc. Israel Finkelstein and his crew have really shaken things up! Yehetzel Kaufmann (deceased) is still the number one conservative foil to the "revisionists." But that's cuz some of them want to go so far to say that "Israel" as a kingdom never really existed and was the invention of the priests who got exiled. The Merneptah Stele and the Tel Dan Stele are decent evidence that the something called "Israel" or the "House of David" existed before the exile... but Finkelstein's group is at least showing that the archaeological record reflects a way different story than the biblical narrative tells us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 mwc/crunk bishop thank you for the links, will check them out. i understand what you are saying, trying to make stuff found fit into biblical history. but i would think it perfectly fine, if they found david's temple, there was no evidence at the site it was david. but if it was built just like how the bible describes it, or had certian detials as described in the bible. wouldn't that be significant. i am not saying to use it as a treasure map. but maybe as a resource. Unfortunately, no. The building they found, so far, is just that...a building. Is it a temple? Not really. So it doesn't fit the description in the bible beyond a "sort of" and it does contain the names of people from the bible on "business cards" so it could be an administration building of some sort. It also appears to have been built in the right time period. So where's the problem you ask? The problem is there's no link to the person who supposedly built it. So who's to say that someone else built it, in the right time period, and then someone else simply moved in later on? Right time period but wrong attribution. So even if the details fit 100% to the bible unless there is a link established you can see why you'd want a more solid link established if we're trying to establish the existance of a person as opposed to the existance of a building. So the building is a start but it is not a end unto itself. It can't be. But since this particular building is on bedrock there isn't anything underneath it so it is the start and end point at this particular site. So they need to find the evidence they're looking for in and/or around the dig (the best thing would of course be something that spelled this out but artifacts that would only be found in his temple is what they need and nothing of the sort, or even close as far I as I know, has been found so far...and even then items get moved so they would be tenuous evidence). Without that all they have is a building but they don't have David's Temple. As for using it as a resource. I'm not sure what you mean. If they firmly establish the date of the building they can make it a type site. Then when they find another site that they suspect is from the same period they will compare it to this site. If they match up then they will match the new site date to this established site date. This is common in the field. This is what I was saying in another message. This is where Finkelstein is causing problems as he wants to redate an established type site (which would in effect for the redating of possibly three type sites and erase Solomon from history since these sites are his only "claim" on reality). This would also force the re-evaluation of anything that was typed against those sites over the years which could mean a lot of work. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts