Larsguy47

Usually what is left over long periods of time are metals or stone, pottery, etc. Sometimes bones sealed away in air-tight tombs. Other biodegradables don't survive. Thus people building and living in stone structures and writing on clay tablets are more easily examined in modern times than those persons living in tents and not writing on clay tablets. Also 10 million people who walk across a stone surface are not likely to leave any foot prints. As a result archaeologists are very frustrated they are not finding much evidence of the Jews during the time of the wilderness trek which parallels the Amarna Period. But there's plenty left from the Amarna Period telling us the state of things in Canaan at this time thanks to the Amarna Letters.

Larsguy

Larsguy47

Perhaps, but Bible history is sort of an "interpretive" thing. When it says the sun stood still in the sky did it really mean that? When we say the "sun rises" do we really mean that? Or is that subjective? We say that because of sun does indeed subjectively rise and fall but we know it's because of the Earth's rotation. So did God stop the Earth's rotation or cause some other phenomena for one day to reflect the light of the sun on that one spot, causing the "subjective" sun to appear to have remained in the sky for a full day?

As far as the flood goes, it's just a historical reference of what happened. It does rain and the planet does have a lot of water on it with lots of oceans, some of that could have come from the flood. It's a "confidence" call.

What is interesting to me though, is DOUBT is not the same as COUNTEREVIDENCE. That is, the Bible says God will again become active and visible in the world and kill off 1/3 to 2/3rds of the world population at "Armageddon" just before the millennium begins. That's billions of people. When that is actually happening, and it is clear how miraculous it all is, the idea of a global flood I think will seem more reasonable. So all considered, at some point if there really is a God and he expects people to believe the Bible was really inspired by him and the things in it are actually true, including hard-to-believe miracles, like the Flood, then demonstrating some modern catatrophic miracles, especially as promised, would go a long way in establishing that confidence.

Of course, in that regard, God is rather partial. For those who believe ahead of time he sort of shows them a few private miracles first so they are prewarned about what is coming and have confidence the Bible is true ahead of time before the nonbelievers, who basically stay in the dark and are non-believers right until the fire of God's wrath begins. Then the idea of the flood and everything else in the Bible becomes a bit more acceptable. Leading some to assess that probably God doesn't really care what the nonbelievers can't accept as truth or reality in the Bible, and in fact, he is known to go out of his way to fool them.

Case it point it seems like having the Jews clean up behind themselves so thoroughly and carefully not leave a single spoon or clay shard behind in the wilderness is way to trip the modern-day nonbelievers guessing until the last minute, though other evidence is given(i.e. Solomon's temple and other buildings built precisely when the Bible dates that event between 910-870BCE).

So one way or the other, the Bible will be vindicated as true or not true if things continue on target per God's schedule and plan of events. So far, everything has happened exactly as prophesied (i.e. the Jews' return to their homeland the 69th jubilee after the Exodus.

Plus he shows the believers little secret things that helps them to believe even in the face of things lack the lack of evidence found by archaeologists so they are not concerned with that, and just consider it another "unexplained" mystery yet to be resolved rather than any contradiction.

Think of it this way. Moses actually spoke with God and saw the ten plagues occur at God's hand. If an archaeologist came up to him and claimed there was no flood he'd think he was incredibly dumb or on drugs. So sometimes those in the know just sort of patronize the not so bright or those left out of the loop for some of these things, knowing God has his own time for showing them his power and making a name for himself.

That's part of the lesson in the story of the Ten Plagues. You know, God is said to have "hardened the heart" of pharoah again and again so that he wouldn't let his people go, leading us to think that under the pressure he might have let them go for all that was happening to the Egyptians. After all, they were there primarily as brickmakers in a central region. But this "hardening" of the heart is likely precisely close to as we saw in the "Ten Commandments" movie starring Yul Brenner and Charlton Heston. Where after they had left already, Neferteri (played brilliantly by Anne Baxter) appeals to pharoah's pride after the fact. Not economics, not religion but pride: "Do you hear laughter, Rameses?", she said. "Not the laughter of kings, but slaves in the desert!" So he began to reflect on his own pride and hurt that led him to seek not to bring the slaves back or to appeal to them by saying he'd give them wages and let them rest on their sabbath day if they came back, but to kill them all. If he couldn't have them as slaves, he just murder the lot of them.

So there was some manipulation on God's part there. And usually he gets Satan, who is so great at appealing to the negative and evil in men's mind to actually do the dirty work (i.e. like sending Satan to test Job, etc. or go down and trick different prophets by evil cunning).

So that sort of thing is consistent with what we're seeing here. God tempting people NOT to believe in him by removing circumstantial evidence that forces them to have a comfort level of disbelief, even though other evidence is provided. In fact, he likes making it so hard for them to believe that even if things are explained in detail it would be against such a background of disbelief,they wouldn't believe it:

41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’”

So miracles like the global flood and the Jews wandering all that time in the wilderness without their clothes wearing out --he knows it's too hard for the average nonbeliever to believe. But it's test to see who will believe or not so he'll know who to let live or let die later on down the road.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Be that as it may, it's ironic that whether or not it can be established that Aristole and Socrates were actually once lovers and that Xenophon masterminded adding 56 fake years to Greek history with the help of Plato will affect the relative dating used by archaeologists for dating Solomon and David right now. Right now Finkelstein is sayinng David is too early, interfering with the Philistine Period which reaces "well into the 10th century BC." Once David and Solomon are downdated 54-60 years then the conflict ends, leaving little archaeohistorical contradictions for Finkelstein to complain about. Bottom line is the Greek historians dictate the latter part of the Persian history, the weakest link in the timeline that is used to date everything all the way back to Shishak. Once that dating is effectively corrected then the archaeologists will be forced to make a different comparison. A difference specific comparison. That is, Solomon is not going to move back in time, causing more problems but forward in time causing less contradiction.

So archaeologists pretty much have a consensus as to when certain things were built and happened during this period, including some fabulous palaces and other structures worthy of Solomon's reputation, especially now tha we have so much RC14 supportive dating to refine things. But the timeline is outdated and ancient and based upon revisions so the comparisons are still based upon old historical preferences at this point. And these are not necessarily strict Biblical dates since the Bible's timelines give different dates than those piggybacked on the Assyrian Period chronology.

For instance, Martin Anstey in the 1800's wrote "The Romance of Bible Chronology" and figured out even way back then there was an 82-year discrepancy between the Bible's dating and the Persian dating for the 1st of Cyrus. Dating the 1st of Cyrus per strict Bible dating, therefore, where the 1st of Cyrus falls c. 455BCE would date the Exodus specifically to 1386BCE and the rule of Solomon c. 910-870BCE. So as far the Bible is concerned, David's rule would not have begun until mid-10th century c. 950BCE anyway, leaving plenty of time for the Phistine pottery period to end gracefully by then as the archaeologists like Finkelstein are claiming.

So a lot of the arguments between these prominent archaeologists are not really archaeological arguments per se, but historical debates about historical issues. Who wrote what? Who changed what? etc. historically, not necessarily when the palaces found are not correctly dated when they are c. 910-870BCE. So the Bible itself, in reality, might critically disagree with Persian records and chronology, but not at all with archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho or when Solomon's palaces were built. But since the archaeologists haven't figured that out yet, or are still on payroll by the British Museum who might have it's own agenda for controlling archaeological evidence in line with it's biggest donors, etc. some of the historical truth is not that apparent.

But the Bible dates Solomon and the fall of Jericho precisely where archaeology is dating it now. Archaologists are thus not arguing about Bible history but Assyrian-based history.

Larsguy47

GakuseiDon

I don't understand what you gain from that. God stopping Earth's rotation is somehow less preferable of an explanation than God using some reflective sleight-of-hand? What do you get from the second explanation that you don't get from the first? Why not just call it a myth in the first place? Couldn't God be using a myth to make the same point, in the same way as He might have been using reflective sleight-of-hand?

jess

Great god you got there, Larsguy47. Real upstanding dude.

But, by that reasoning, why not go away as we are all forced by god to not believe. Or are you stronger than god?

spamandham

What makes you think this was not considered as a possibility? Does Finkelstein say anything like "we can dismiss the possibility of X, because it's in the Bible."?

I'm no expert on the history of this period by any stretch, and the only Finkelstein work I've read is "The Bible Unearthed", but I'm reasonably proficient at spotting BS, and my BSometer started buzzing when I read this.

Larsguy47

God has this policy that the everybody must be given some warning, even if he intentionally makes it technically too difficult to believe for the scorners. His message is believable by the believers but unbelievable by the nonbelievers. Neat, huh?

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Finkelstein actually is pretty good. He does give you some "either this or that", but he simply doesn't include enough options. Thus his position approaches a straw man's argument built upon a weak, false argument in the reasoning. Remember, no chain is stronger than it's weakest link. The moment he based everything on the 763BCE eclipse for dating the Assyrian Period, all the arguments are subject to that dating being a correct presumption. Now that it is being challenged, all those arguments dependent upon that are challenged as well.

Here's a typical statement from Finkelstein from The Bible Unearthed to see how easy this is, page 187:

"Significantly, the pottery styles uncovered in the Jezreel enclosure were almost identical to those found in the level of the "Solomonic" palaces of Megiddo... The hypothesis that the Omrides, not Solomon, established the first fully developed monarchy in Israel grew more convincing with a new look at the evidence from the other major cities ofthe kingdomof Israel. At Hazor, Yadin had identified a triangular compound on the acropolis--surounded by a casemate wall and entered through a six-chambered gate--as the city established by Solomon in the tenth century BCE. The redating of the pottery on the basis of the Jezreel discoveries would palce this city level in the early ninth century BCE."

Thus the archaeological evidence from Jezreel, matching that of Megiddo would date both in the "early ninth century BCE." If we correct the 763BCE eclipse to 709BCE, then Shishak's invasion moves from 925BCE down to 871BCE, which is just past the "early ninth century BCE" (899-875BCE). The correct dating for Solomon is from 910-870BCE which is late 10th/early 9th century BCE, exactly where all the archaeological evidence including RC14 dating dates it.

But he fudges a bit in his evidence as well. For instance on page 142 he is quoted as saying: "Finally a series of samples from the destruction of a stratum at Tel Rehov near Bethshean, which is contemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomonic city, gave mid-ninth century dates--long afer its reported destruction by Pharoah Shishak in 926 BCE."

It is City IV that has dating that is ranged from 918-823BCE by RC14 dating.



Besides the clear peaking at 99% for dates 874-867BCE, mid-destructive level around 871BCE is closer to the mid first half of the 9th century (c. 875BCE) rather than mid 9th century (850BCE). The range of 918-823BCE given for the destruction of city IV level is 871 BCE (870.5; 918+823=1741 divided by 2 = 870.5). So rather you go with mid-range or highest probability a better generalization of the dating is mid second quarter rather than mid 9th. At any rate, clearly City IV level dating linked with the Megiddo palace level compared to destruction by Shishak in 925BCE. But what happens when you correct the eclipse to 709BCE from 763BCE? 925BCE becomes 871BCE, precisely where Finkelstein has linked the Solomonic level.

So Finkelstein had a choice to say either someone else destroyed this level other than Shishak, or Shishak needs to be dated to 871BCE to match the archaeological evidence. Finkelstein then makes his own choice, that the Biblical timeline was revised in later times rather than the secular timeline. Thus Solomon becomes a myth, only based upon the strength of the 763BCE eclipse. This has nothing to do with reality, however, because the true secular event occurs in 709BCE which would date Shishak's invasion in 871BCE, and it certainly does not represent the Biblical dating which based upon either 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus or 1947 as the last jubilee would also date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, exactly where the archaeology is showing it. Thus the Bible is absolutely correct that a major monarchy level did occur in the early 9th century which is where the Bible itself dates Solomon's rule (910-870BCE). So all of Finkelstein's arguments are a "straw man's argument" because he first has to make the presumption that the 763BCE eclipse is correct. Biblicalists have their own dating for that eclipse.

In the end, therefore, Finkelstein becomes a reverse Biblical advocate, establishing clearly when the Solomonic level was built in the early 9th century, perfectly in line with the true, corrected Biblical timeline. That's why we like him so much, he at least was honest enough to challenge the Bible when the evidence looked that it did. He was true to the evidence. But he just didn't factor in a 54-year error in the secular timeline or the misdating of that eclipse during the Assyrian Period.

Her's a Finkelstein WHAT IF, again relating to Jezreel, page 343:

"The surprise was that the pottery found in the Jezreel enclosure is identical to the pottery of the city of palaces at Megiddo. But the latter was supposed to have been destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak almost a century earlier! HOW CAN WE BRIDGE THIS GAP? Thre are only two possibilities here: either we pull the building of Jezreel back to the time of Solomon, or we push the Megiddo places ahead to the time of the dynasty of Ahab."

Please note, another straman's arugment here. Finkelstein has limited the choices so that we pick his own choice when clearly there is more than just "two possibilities." Another way to bridge the gap, obviously, is simply to bring Shishak and Megiddo down to the mid early 9th century and date Solomon's reign during that time. That would entail redating the entire Assyrian Period down by 54 years though as well. But that is one way "we bridge the gap," correct the discrepancy. Date Shishak down to 871BCE, which is technically "mid 9th century" (875-825BCE), but just barely.

You see, Finkelstein, though he's generally honest is really glossing this a bit. That's because the Battle of Karkar dated to 853BCE is mid 9th century and he desperately needs to place this destructive level of both the Solomonic palaces and Jezreel down as low as he can, at least 8 years later past 853BCE to 845BCE. That's the problem of FIXED chronology based upon an eclipse. See Hazeal doesn't and can't have destroyed this level, not that there is critical evidence that he did, until he arrives on the scene in about the 14th of Shalmaneser III in 845BCE. Thus very much "mid 9th century". But the RC14 evidence for City IV at Rehov doesn't point that late. It points to c. 874-867BCE as the end of that city, which would not ordinarily be referred to as "mid 9th century." So to introduce Finkelstein he casually pushes the dating down to make this happen.

Note what he says later on page 343: "The city of ashlar palaces at Megiddo was destroyed in the mid-ninth century, probaby by Hazael, and not in 925 BCE by Shishak." Hazeal appears, as noted around 841BCE thus you get the push to "mid 9th century." But as noted the more specific Rehov RC14 dating doesn't really point that low and points more "honestly" to around the early mid 9th century, c. 874-867BCE which wouldn't reach down far enough to include a destruction by Hazael. Besides how can you explain the inscription found at Megiddo by Shishak?

Bottom line is, when you got with the best available scientific dating, pointing to mid early 9th century for the Shishak invasion you get both the chronology and archaeology correct.

Now, having noted that. Why am I the one who is posting a lot of "crap" like some have claimed? It's Finkelstein that is posting just a little bit of "crap" by fudging on pushing the dating for the Solomonic level down to the MID 9th century when it doesn't quite get down that far. But what choice does he have?

See, you can't even trust semi-honest archaeologists who have their own agendas. When you go behind them and check their facts they all try and blurr the margins or generalize to make their own arguments fit better. In my case, I can go with the best possible and "highest probable" reference and make the Bible turn out the winner.

So, at the end of the day, the Bible is correct and Solomon did, indeed, build great things during his reign as the Bible says, only in the early 9th and not early 10th century BCE.

Larsguy47

spamandham

I certainly agree with this much. From what I can tell, historians and archaeologists both seem to oversell the certainty of their conclusions, which are often more speculative than anything else.

spin

Larsguy47, would please pay attention to your own evidence:



It tells you clearly that 885-845BCE has a probability of 54.8% That's because it is the largest stretch. 903-892BCE has 13.4%. Note that together these two ranges add up to 68.2% probability. It's a straight range to percentage probability. The range 918-823BCE gets 95.4%, again straight range to percentage probability. The smaller the range, the smaller the probability.


spin