Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

What don't you understand? If she's not dating, based on archaeological evidence.....she's dating, based on that written record, and personal opinion. Which is written in which book?

I know you know the answer...you can do it.

Peace

ROFL!!! Listen, it's not that simple. Had it occurred to you that there was a reason why she didn't go for the 1400 or 1260 BCE dates for the Israelite invasion? There were other digs like at Jericho to consider and coordinate.

Now now wall remains were found, but she gives a reason why she believes there was no wall remaining, not your explanation that there never was a wall. Please note the fine print:

"The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-used this, or a NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT, so nothing remians of it..."

"NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT..."

"NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT...".

And Dame Kenyon, you're a great archaeologist who dug up Jericho. Can you tell us anything about the destruction of Jericho? When it happened? And what you think about the 1260 or 1400 BCE dates promoted by some of the schools of thought out there?

KATHLEEN KENYON SAYS, "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

:wave:

LG47

POLL:

3DJAY: 0

LG47: 50

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

So, the truth comes out Lars? You don't care about evidence so long as the numbers work out for you, huh?

Fortunately it is working out for me, just fine. Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho (did you hear?) between 1350-1325BCE. Period. It actually happened in 1346BCE, so she's right on the money.

Quote:

Unfortunately, I think you're the only one for who that works. Mayhap you'd best try to sell it to some people who can't reason it out like we can.

Thanks for trying.

If you don't try, you can't succeed. And I have succeeded, big time! But indeed, there may be a problem "selling" these concepts to people with your reasoning level, that is, who have made up their own minds and can't deal with the facts. Kenyon dates Jerichos fall by the "Israelites" to 1350-1325 BCE. Period. Seems like she understands my reasoning perfectly well. Of course, she is the person who actually did the digging at Jericho. Were you there?

:wave:

LG47

RED DAVE · 05-01-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Fortunately it is working out for me, just fine. Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho (did you hear?) between 1350-1325BCE. Period. It actually happened in 1346BCE, so she's right on the money.

If you don't try, you can't succeed. And I have succeeded, big time! But indeed, there may be a problem "selling" these concepts to people with your reasoning level, that is, who have made up their own minds and can't deal with the facts. Kenyon dates Jerichos fall by the "Israelites" to 1350-1325 BCE. Period. Seems like she understands my reasoning perfectly well. Of course, she is the person who actually did the digging at Jericho. Were you there?

Uhh, there seems to be some kind of a conflict here.

Quote:

A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archaeologically to around 1550 BC in the 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho after its walls fell out around 1407 BC: the end of the 15th century. Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 BC, in confirmation, but like much early biblical archaeology, his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archaeologists support.[7][8] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC plus or minus 38 years.(Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)[9][10] Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.

(emphasis added.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

So, anyway:

Quote:

1) 2 1/2 million people allegedly wandering around in the desert.

2) No evidence whatseover of their presence.

3) Therefore, they weren't there.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

Quote: A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archaeologically to around 1550 BC in the 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho after its walls fell out around 1407 BC: the end of the 15th century. Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 BC, in confirmation, but like much early biblical archaeology, his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archaeologists support.[7][8] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC plus or minus 38 years.(Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)[9][10] Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time. "

Again, this burn level along with the walls is the mid-Bronze city, not the LBIIA city. 1550 BCE is where she dates that level, but that's not where she dates the Israelite destructive level, which is 1350-1325BCE. This level is not the "burn" level or "wall" level in question. So it is irrelevant to her dating of the LBIIA level.

Just so you can understand that we're talking about two different levels here and you can't understand it, is that Garstang found cartouches of Amenhotep III at the LBIIA level. The late dating for the end of Amenhotep III's rule is 1351BCE (or earlier in 1378BCE). This is during the LBIIA PERIOD, which is from 1400-1300 BCE. Nobody is moving Amenhotep III back to 1550BCE. Sorry. As far back as you'll get the last of Amenhotep III generally is c. 1390BCE. The KTU 1.78 would date his last year in 1386BCE.

Here's Kenyon's statement about the LBIIA occupation level:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

LG47

spin · 05-01-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Please, folks with a Doctorate title have the liberty to use Dr. as a general appellation before their names. And even more so on a multiple-discipline work such as "The Exodus Case". Anders, I find your "close to dishonest" comment "close to dishonest".

But of course most people on ii find your '"close to dishonest" comment "close to dishonest" comment, well, really "close to dishonest"'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Lot's of folks have followed up on the Ron Wyatt material on the Exodus. The Ron Wyatt Exodus material dates mostly to the 1970's and 1980's, and he was following up on some excellent references that had been largely overlooked in the Sinai Peninsula fascination of the earlier 1900's.

And most people most everywhere would find your blind faith in the fakir Ron Wyatt reflective of your total lack of credibility.

spin

RED DAVE · 05-01-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Again, this burn level along with the walls is the mid-Bronze city, not the LBIIA city. 1550 BCE is where she dates that level, but that's not where she dates the Israelite destructive level, which is 1350-1325BCE. This level is not the "burn" level or "wall" level in question. So it is irrelevant to her dating of the LBIIA level.

Just so you can understand that we're talking about two different levels here and you can't understand it, is that Garstang found cartouches of Amenhotep III at the LBIIA level. The late dating for the end of Amenhotep III's rule is 1351BCE (or earlier in 1378BCE). This is during the LBIIA PERIOD, which is from 1400-1300 BCE. Nobody is moving Amenhotep III back to 1550BCE. Sorry. As far back as you'll get the last of Amenhotep III generally is c. 1390BCE. The KTU 1.78 would date his last year in 1386BCE.

Here's Kenyon's statement about the LBIIA occupation level:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

LG47

Whatever.

Back to the OP:

Quote:

1) 2 1/2 million people allegedly wandering around in the desert.

2) No evidence whatseover of their presence.

3) Therefore, they weren't there.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47 · 05-01-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

Whatever.

Back to the OP:

Back to the OP:

Quote:
1) 2 1/2 million people allegedly wandering around in the desert, living in tents, whose clothes didn't wear out, eating a special food provided by their God, and with a culture centered around cleanliness.

2) No evidence whatseover of their presence.

3) Therefore, they weren't there, since they should have left gold for us to find 3000 years later, or a few discarded tents.

RED DAVE

Yeah, I see what you mean.

RED DAVE · 05-01-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Somehow, I doubt it.

RED DAVE

3DJay · 05-01-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

ROFL!!! Listen, it's not that simple. Had it occurred to you that there was a reason why she didn't go for the 1400 or 1260 BCE dates for the Israelite invasion? There were other digs like at Jericho to consider and coordinate.

Now now wall remains were found, but she gives a reason why she believes there was no wall remaining, not your explanation that there never was a wall. Please note the fine print:

"The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-used this, or a NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT, so nothing remians of it..."

"NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT..."

"NEW WALL MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE IT...".

And Dame Kenyon, you're a great archaeologist who dug up Jericho. Can you tell us anything about the destruction of Jericho? When it happened? And what you think about the 1260 or 1400 BCE dates promoted by some of the schools of thought out there?

KATHLEEN KENYON SAYS, "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

:wave:

LG47

POLL:

3DJAY: 0

LG47: 50

Where do you see her presenting any archaeological evidence, in ANY of the quotes you're posting? She's giving an opinion based on her belief, nothing more.

Okay, I see we'll have to do this the harder way...

Archaeology: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities

nothing: an indefinite pronoun indicating that there is not anything, not a single thing, or not a single part of a thing; a zero quantity or zero; void; nonexistence; Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness

may: used to express possibility
possibile: being something that may or may not be true or actual

failed: To be unsuccessful

She honestly used the word "conjecture", herself, so why are you arguing with me, and dishonestly representing her?

conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

In fact, you posted exactly where she's getting her belief from...

"It is not therefore necessary to believe that allthe tribes of Isrel took part in the entry into the Promised Land with Joshua. But all the canons of historical criticism demand that we accept the main facts of the story of the conquest of Jericho as AUTHENTIC, for it was obviously an event of great importance in the ultimate dominance of the Israelites in Palestine, and the wealth of detail makes it clear that it was a faithful verbal record handed down for generations until it was incorporated in a written record."

What written record, is that? Where's her opinion coming from? I know you know. C'mon, spit it out.

And, I don't believe you could have polled 50 people.....I don't believe you have 50 friends.

Peace

spin · 05-01-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Where do you see her presenting any archaeological evidence, in ANY of the quotes you're posting? She's giving an opinion based on her belief, nothing more.

Okay, I see we'll have to do this the harder way...

Archaeology: the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities

nothing: an indefinite pronoun indicating that there is not anything, not a single thing, or not a single part of a thing; a zero quantity or zero; void; nonexistence; Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness

may: used to express possibility
possibile: being something that may or may not be true or actual

failed: To be unsuccessful

She honestly used the word "conjecture", herself, so why are you arguing with me, and dishonestly representing her?

conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

In fact, you posted exactly where she's getting her belief from...

"It is not therefore necessary to believe that allthe tribes of Isrel took part in the entry into the Promised Land with Joshua. But all the canons of historical criticism demand that we accept the main facts of the story of the conquest of Jericho as AUTHENTIC, for it was obviously an event of great importance in the ultimate dominance of the Israelites in Palestine, and the wealth of detail makes it clear that it was a faithful verbal record handed down for generations until it was incorporated in a written record."

What written record, is that? Where's her opinion coming from? I know you know. C'mon, spit it out.

And, I don't believe you could have polled 50 people.....I don't believe you have 50 friends.

Not 50 friends, maybe, but 50 JW drones?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.