Gullwind

Look! There went the point!

I suppose I could spend a couple of hours looking up specific quotes, dates and papers, but since all you have to do is roll out your "but its not universally accepted" line, I won't waste my time. You haven't given any specific studies whose results you accept, so there's really no point.

You asked what else there could be other than possibilities. I suppose from a strictly literalist position you're right, since it's not 100% certain the sun will come up tomorrow. I have admitted several times that my position could change with new evidence, but until that evidence shows up, I see no reason to assume the bible is right. You have certainly provided no additional reasons.

Getting picky, aren't we? Okay. In my opinion, the position you appear to be defending has sufficient evidence against it (as well as a sufficient lack of evidence where it could reasonably be expected to be found) for me to doubt the veracity of the biblical claims. Is that subjective enough for you?

See your post #92.

It doesn't really matter, does it? Since few claims in science are universally accepted, any particular position will have someone who disagrees with it, and is therefore suspect. Does that about sum up your position?

spin

Would, umm, JJ Bimson be acceptible? (oh, and someone called David Livingston).


spin

hinduwoman

Just something about the OP:

Helo’s theories are not original. I watched a BBC documentary a year back or so, which had the exactly same theories about Red sea becoming red by addition of soil, Reed sea as a marshy area where chariots got struck, first born of Egypt referring to only the Pharaoh’s son, Moses being an Egyptian prince who tried a palace coup and was chased out with his supporters etc. Word for word.

EthnAlln

Lemme get this straight: Yahweh sent out an angel as a hit man for just the Pharaoh's son, but the angel was so fucking stupid that it couldn't tell the Pharoah's son from all the first-born children of the Hebrews, forcing all the Hebrews to post the blood of a lamb on their doors so the angel would pass over them. As Mark Twain said, in the matter of intellect, such a deity is the head pauper of the universe.

Boro Nut

Yeah. Why not just tell him to stay out of the ghetto? Saves blood. So does letting all the first born have a sleepover in one house.

Boro Nut

xaxxat

But where would the DRAMA be in that?

bfniii

bartered, taken; either way. it doesn't matter. the point is that the plague didn't eliminate every option the egyptians had.



who knows how long it went on. that's the point. the bible doesn't specify.

bfniii

1. we don't know that it was a few million. the words used to describe the numbers have various interpretations.
2. is there any roman equivalent to the exodus? i don't know of one. an unknown number of people wandering in a rugged environment, taking a path not known to us at an undetermined time.



in this case, they allegedly did.



now just tell archaeologists exactly where to look and at what level......



1. what if it's not a few million people?
2. what if they stood 200 abreast? what about 500?



i don't recall you ever showing that i avoided something.



unanswered questions does not mean the account is easily believed or false. i have read that the sinai was more lush several thousand years ago than it is now. if that's the case, it would sustain life easier than today.

bfniii

no offense, but i don't put much stock in your ability to ascertain what i know or don't know nor am i intimidated by your subtle tactics.



funny. "quite a lot". is that a scientific term?



i never said anything to the contrary. even so, that doesn't mean that their conclusions are infallible nor does it mean they spent enough time there to decide anything conclusive regarding the battle ai. i already brought these items up before and you response with this vague, question-begging reply.



a whole 5? goodness, that pretty much covers the entire site doesn't it? and how big were each of these "five spots"?



not totally.



i have not questioned their methods. i have questioned how exhaustive their work is in regards to the ai narrative. as i said, jericho is far from over.

spin

Well, you wouldn't know what quite a lot is when you haven't read their work.

You seem to be losing track. We are talking about different things over different posts. The Italians were the most recent archaeologists at Jericho and don't comment on Ai.

Try to disparage what you don't know or understand. Your tendentious motivation betrays your lack of response with this attempt to belittle what you are ignorant of..

The Italians are not working in a vacuum, but in the context of Kenyon's work at Jericho. To understand their work, it would help if you knew something tangible about Kenyon. Their work reflects development on Kenyon, so they explore areas other than those she investigated in order to test the implications of the earlier work. There digs at Jericho covered a wide range of phases, so their look at the Late Bronze city was only a part of their overall efforts. in unearthing where the walls should have been in places basically on top of old ones, shows that there were no walls. Stratigraphy is simple but deadly effective.

What elsewould you like?

Why talk about Ai in a post not about Ai?? You need to keep better track when you answer as you do.

At this rate, none of the old archaeology you tout has any value, because it is far from over. If it reflects your a priori position then you use archaeology, when it doesn't, you go kamikaze. Get real.


spin