WILLOWTREE

From: Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol.2, Part 2 [1975] Chapter VII "Archaeological Evidence" page 331:

"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."

Fink is an atheist = his conclusions will always refect this fact.

Why does anyone think they can get accurate information about the Bible from an atheist ?

IOW, an award determines truth. LOL !

Here we have an atheist honoring an atheist = no surprise.

The presuppositions of Finkelstein (Bible is not true/myth) predetermine the conclusions. The only relevant issue is why persons like Fink hide their world view and its starting assumptions ? Why do atheists feign an objectivity that does not exist ?

Answer: To achieve their goal of making the Bible appear to be contradicted by "evidence". This is done to validate their atheist worldview. How could an atheist conclude for the Bible ? That would be disproving your own worldview.

"The views in the Harper’s article are attributed almost exclusively to Israel Finkelstein, an archeologist at Tel Aviv University whose work – Harper’s never mentions this – has been emphatically put down by other archeologists, including archeologists on the left wing of the debate. “Not a single senior archaeologist has come out in support� of Finkelstein’s primary methodology, while many leading scholars have rejected it, writes Herschel Shanks, the extremely well-credentialed editor of Biblical Archeology Review"

Dr. Scott (www.drgenescott.com): "Everyone has an axe to grind.....objective persons declare their bias up-front so when it creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it."

The hiding of atheist worldview is a necessity in Biblical studies for obvious reasons.

Dever and his phony blistering of minimalists (euphemism for atheism) in order to objectify his Exodus-a-myth real target agenda/conlcusions.

The Jesus Seminar CLAIMS to be made up of "true christians". In reality, they are atheists parading as such in order to attempt to preserve their philosophical conclusions as evidenced-based.

Asserting closet minimalists as anything other fools nobody.

Minimalist approach:

Illogical assumptions are starting "facts":

"Ironically, scholars have tended to devalue the historical testimony of the biblical literature to the degree that its narrative displays a high level of literary skill. The assumption is that the higher the level of sophistication in the presentation the less reliable the historical testimony."

Logically, the higher level of literary skills supports scholarship and truth, but atheist "scholars" ASSUME just the opposite when the Bible is the focus.

Again, an faulty assumption is being processed as researched evidence.

Isaiah exhibits the highest literary skills of any O.T. personage. This indicates higher training and academia. Atheists simply reverse logic according to the requirements of their worldview and assert intelligence equals unreliability.

By this standard Fink is a retard, but his atheism makes him ineligible for their rigged litmus test against monotheist authors.

There is only one author of Isaiah. Writing style change indicates a different scribe doing the actual writing but one scholar/Prophet providing the words.

Besides, atheists ASSUME prophecy/miracle is not possible. This explains their blatantly dishonest logic argued as discovered fact.

How could an atheist conclude for the veracity of the greatest O.T. Prophet/miracle forth-telling ?

But there is one atheist who has concluded for the Bible - Velikovsky.

Velikovsky paraphrased:

The ASSUMPTION that Thutmose III lived and reigned in the 15th century BC was the main basis to presume the mid-15th century Exodus a myth. The strongest of all Pharoah's in Egypt's history could not of allowed the Hebrews to leave much less unmolested.

Velikovsky proved Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century - but in the 10th.

IOW, atheists allowed the false information to be held as fact in order to let the O.T. chronology and the Exodus be seen as erroneous.

IOW, atheists ASSUMED the Exodus was a myth based on a false assumption !

END VELIKOVSKY PARAPHRASE.

Even though Thutmose III has been incontrovertibly proven to have lived in the 10th century (Shishak of the Bible) atheists just ignore and evade and corrupt.

This pattern of evidence invention, evading, and corruption is alive and well as is evidenced by Celsus, Fink, and the Jesus Seminar just to name a few.

Common Sense:

If you want accurate information about the Bible - do not consult an atheist.

WT

Gawen

Goodness...that's probably the longest Ad Hom I've seen here yet.

Vicki

I'm rather surprised that you are using a
psychiatrist as your Appeal to Authority here.

I am NOT surprised that you are paraphrasing, rather than using actual quotes.

badger3k

I'm not surprised. I do wonder at the psychiatrist part. According to The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (2000), the Pharoah Thutmose III (Menkheperra) reigned from 1479-1425. The book even has some information on chronology - the three methods used to determine the dates ('relative' dating, calendrical/astronomical, and radiocarbon), although not in detail. I'd say that the scholars probably have a better idea than a psychiatrist.

The particular chapter on the 18th Dynasty (pre-Amarna) was Betsy Bryan, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Professor Bryan is active today in archeology (see here for recent info), and as the Chair of Near East Studies at JHU, might know a bit more than Velikovsky. I assume this is the gent (here?

If so, there is a lot on him online, not only there, but here (I wondered why the name was familiar!), here has an analysis of the claim that Willowtree believes, and last (but not least, do a google for more, the Comet Venus theory.

Well, one more, a biography of the good doctor:here. Edit -this last is from one of his supporters, as he states that Velikovsky's claims have been proven "spectacularly" IIRC. :rolling:

spin

"Fink"? Oh, how witty!

Willow Tree, who disagrees with my biblical interpretation must be an atheist, otherwise why would he disagree?

History is based on evidence, not literary merit. Historically unsupported literary texts do not make historical testimony except for the period in which they were written, if one can determine when they were written. If not, they are devoid of historical value until the situation changes.

Petronius Arbiter exihibits much higher literary skills than Velleius Paterculus, so obviously the Satyricon is of more historical value than the Illustrious Lives.

<deleted>And moderators, if you feel like removing this comment, why did you allow the one about Finkelstein to stay?

Because, unlike WILLOWTREE, Finkelstein is not a member and, therefore, not protected by the rules.

This I guess explains why the book tells us at the beginning that Isaiah lived through the reigns of Uzziah and Hezekiah, yet in 45:1 we suddenly get "Thus said the Lord to Cyrus, his anointed one...", Cyrus living 150 years after Hezekiah.

Oh, I get it, Isaiah is "prophecying"!

Most scholars of religious bent see Isaiah as haveing at least three authors, so you are calling them atheists. You are such a fascist, Willow Tree.

Lots of them have, but you could have chosen someone with a little knowledge about what he was talking about. Velikovsky was ignorant of the languages involved, the literary genres involved and knew next to nothing about the historical data. He was an early von Daniken.

And I guess you'd call Ken Kitchen an atheist because he would vehemently disagree with your touting of this Velikovsky.

My blind eye, he did. He showed himself to be an incompetent know-nothing.

This won't mean anything to Willow Tree, but Tuthmosis III predates the Amarna letters by a hundred years. The Amarna letters talk of the Assyrian king Ashur-uballit (I) who lived in the "Ages Unchaotic" Assyrian realm whose king lists place him in the 14th c. BCE.

The Hittites were also found in the Amarna letters, the Hittites whose kingdom was destroyed by the sea peoples who also destroyed Ugarit (also mentioned in the Amarna letters) and above the destruction layer of Ugarit was found a layer of sterile soil reflecting the regional drought which struck the area before 1100 BCE and which lingered for a couple of centuries, causing the destruction of much of the Mesopotamian irrigation system. This same drought brought the Aramaeans out of their traditional homeland in Jebel Bishri, marauding Mesopotamia and eventually settling in northern Syria. This is all before the recovery from the effects of the drought started after 1000 BCE. That's when we see the Assyrians back in expansionist mode.

It's hilarious to see the theist rely on the atheist.

Oh, please thrill us with your loist of this false information.

Though not able to speak for atheists, historians start with what they know and reconstruct from there. The information about the exodus is not historical knowledge, but literary knowledge, as there is no way of knowing when it was written or how it was derived, therefore its historical content cannot be demonstrated.

The only thing incontrovertible about Velikovsky's claims is that they have little to do with fact. What I like is how like is drawn to like.

Common sense (according to me):

If you want accurate information about anything - consult the facts.

If you have no knowledge of the field, get experience about it and then you have a better chance of knowing how to use the facts.


spin

WILLOWTREE

Insult = inability to refute.

WT

spin

I think Gawen would agree. I certainly would. That's why he pointed out that your post was "probably the longest Ad Hom [he'd] seen here".


spin

WILLOWTREE

http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm#top

http://www.hshideaway.com/photo1.htm

http://www.hshideaway.com/photo2.htm

"Piece by piece the altars and vessels of Solomon's Temple can be identified on the wall of Karnak."

How did the Temple at Jerusalem's one of a kind vessels get on the Karnak Temple walls ?

Answer: Thutmose III/Shishak took them from Rehoboam just like the Bible says.

Nobody denies Rehoboam reigned in the 10th century. Nobody denies the Temple was built in the previous generation. This means 1Kings 6:1 is true and exposes assertions contradicting these facts to be the rants of atheists who cannot admit they are wrong.

This forces that O.T. chronology is true and the assertions of Egyptologists are just that - assertions evading the historically factual O.T.

You evos can deduce totally obscure fossil scraps to be proof that an ape was transitional but this see for yourself easy to match evidence escapes your ability.

IOW, no matter what any evidence which proves the Bible (which also disproves atheist worldview) is not evidence.

My only point: The Romans 1 wrath of God penalty is true.

Either way the Bible is proven true.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Show me ONE Near East kingdom/nation which records a defeat ?

How many defeats does the Bible record for Israel/Judah ?

How many Near East nations record any victory during the reign of David ?
(1018 - 978 BC) lack of = proof of his reign and vast kingdom just like the Bible says. (Hi Celsus)

Atheist Propaganda:

"Egyptian texts and records never mention the Plagues and Exodus"

IOW, they set up a straw man as "proof" against the Biblical claims.

Response: Show me ONE recorded defeat that a Near East nation makes ?

There are no official Egyptian version of the Plagues or Exodus BECAUSE NEAR EAST NATIONS DO NOT RECORD DEFEATS !

What Egyptian would record the destruction of their country ?

Only the Bible does = evidence of Divine.

WT

cjack

I think I've got another one for WinAce...

Argumentum ad punching baggum.

"Yeah, we got our asses kicked, but the fact that we're willing to admit it means we're God's Chosen people!!!"







Sorry, but the ability to admit defeat doesn't mean you're divine.