Ion

aza wood, can you submit this to William Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, Zelev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University, archeologist Neil Asher Silberman, Carol Meyers, a professor specializing in Biblical studies and archeology at Duke University, etc..
Because their scientific-based consensus is a lack of evidence for Joshuua's conquests in the 13th. century BC, and the similarity in pottery, architecture, literary conventions and cultural details between the Canaanites and the first Israelite settlements in West Bank; they argue, with no conquest no evidence of a new settlement of an ethnically distinct people, then the case for a literal reading of Exodus all but collapses.
But, please aza wood, convince these specialists, they don't know what you claim you know.

aza wood

Ion, are you bluffing? I find what you are saying very hard to believe! Or are these people that you have mentioned, all atheists, with their own agenda.
The statement that I made is from true history books, and widely excepted evidence, except of corse by atheist who have there own reasons for questioning everything.
I know what your doing. You must have read that debating info from Sec-web on how to win a debate, that tells you "any-thing-goes as long as you can get away with it! It says that it's not the one who has truth, that wins a debate, but the one with the most B.S.! The one who uses the most and biggest words!
Well I have some old news for you, Ion! If you cheat, you only appear to win! The truth is more important, at least to me, than your jargon!

JohnV

What traces of Israel should we expect to find in the desert? They ate manna, their stuff didn't wear out - there was nothing to throw away.

Ion

Bones of the Israelites who died, worn out objects they threw away over 40 years of wandering in the desert, and accounts of this feat by Egyptians with their different culture.
Similar to: "...a scientist spotted large bones protruding from rocks. The bones are from the largest tyrannosaur yet found, 120 million years old and more than 21 feet long, a predecessor of North America's Tyrannosaurus Rex.", as reported March 1997 by National Geographic. Regarding, Exodus, 3250 years ago, and not millions of years ago, this should be a piece of cake in archaeology, if it wasn't bogus. But it is bogus.

Ion

It's only your sentiments aza_wood. Prove the historicity of Jericho's conquest after 40 years of wandering in the desert to scientists. They don't know what you claim you do know. Then come back to me.

rodahi

Why do you presume that those scholars who disagree with you have an agenda? Couldn't it very well be that they DO NOT have an agenda?

rodahi

JohnV

Whether we should find bones is debatable, but finding worn out objects would go against the Biblical account:

Deuteronomy 29
{5}During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.
{6}You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: JohnV ]

E_muse

This goes back to my previous question - what archeological evidence can we expect to find?

Also (and I cannot at this stage give specific examples), Egyptian literature makes mention of nomadic groups who have left no archeological trace. However, this literature wouldn't be called into question. In fact, it's lack of a clear mention of the Israelites is often used as evidence against the Bible.

Archeologists speak of 'invisible nomads'.

I understand that Finkelstein points out numerous difficulties with material remains of peoples in arid zones (such as Arad, Edom, Kadesh Barnea). The main problem is that arid-dwellers have a behavioral range that varies between sedentry, those who build things and leave thing at abandonment to nomadic who do not build and leave things. As far as I understand he is one of the major experts in this field and rejects the 'no remains, therefore no occupation' theories.

E_muse

But within the context of this thread, scientific evidence is being presented with a very specific agenda.

Ion clearly stated in his opening comments that he was inviting people to 'knock out theists'. This statement has not been retracted.

Of course, Ion's statements might not represent the intentions of those scientists whom he is quoting but this being the case it would then seem that the intention of this thread is an abuse of the scientific method.

Clearly, the opening statements of this thread suggest that the use of scientific theory to undermine a particular cross section of society is legitimate and I think that many reading this thread could come to the conclusion which Aza Wood has.

As I've stated before, theist is a very broad term representing many different belief systems. Ion seems confident that current scientific understanding can undermind them all clearly indicating that science and theism are in opposition to one another.

I don't know if you've read back into the thread but I do think that Ion's explicitly stated opening agenda and his continued use of the Los Angeles times article did create the impression that only a theist would disagree with the theories contained therein.

However, Ion's quotes do not represent 'scientific opinion' in its absolute sense but a prevailing opinion within science - a consensus view. Ion commends a scientific approach to understanding but, within this context, limits this understanding to one particular viewpoint.

The danger is that the inerrant Bible is being replaced with the innerancy of a scientific approach to understanding. A new embryonic form of fundamentalism within atheism?

The term 'fundie' or 'fundamentalist' is oft used on these forums as synominous with 'theist' or beliver. However, I'm tending to think that fundamentalism represents a method of thinking employed to establish ones own beliefs and that atheists can be as 'fundamentalist' in their thinking and appeal to authority as any theist. Where those who dare to disagree are merely fodder for those who hold the dominant view.

I hope that most scientists would delight at the thought of their ideas being discussed, scrutinized and appraised - even doubted! Science is made up of many disciplines and opinions.

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion

So JohnV, the Bible supports the Bible whenever the Bible is consistent (see Biblical inconsistencies on this web site), but nothing ouside the Bible supports the Bible. I will pass on the validity of such an 'argument'.