3DJay

Are there really that many of them? I keep seeing the same 4 people, going door to door, all over town.


Peace

Larsguy47

That is simply not true. A large part of the dating for the LBIIA period that Kenyon does is based upon the Amenhotep III cartouches found. So that links that destructive level to the Egytian timeline. There is not that much leeway there. But even so, you suggest your expertise is above hers in this opinion, which apparently it isn't since if you don't date this fall in 1346BCE, its simply incorrect. Your attempt to dismiss her expertise in this without foundation like this is just, well...amazing. There is no need to though. THE ONLY REFERENCE I NEED is a LBIIA Jericho, with or without walls, to substantiate a 1346BCE event. That's all. What Kenyon does for me is eliminate the options of the 1400 BCE and the 1260 BCE popular dates for this event. She says, no, those don't work with the archaeology. So she's great!

Right. That includes findings of historical markers, like pottery and cartouches if you're fortunate. All that's part of it.



It absolutely doesn't matter because all she is doing is dating the LBIIA period as she must as ending between 1350-1325BCE based primarily on the Egytian timeline dating for Amenhotep III which was an archaeological marker. That's really ALL I need from archaeology, proof of a LBIIA end to Jericho without an occupation for the next 400 years. That is what Kenyon documents for us.

"It is not therefore necessary to believe that all the tribes of Israel 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."

Right. That's why the walls are not a big deal. She understands that the story, however, embellished likely had a real event foundation. She assigns that event of their destroying Jericho to the LBIIA period. She is confirmed by Manetho in this who dates the Exodus during the time of Amenhotep.

The Bible?

Ha! I was being kind... I get the first 50 votes in my pole, so I didn't need to pole anybody else.

Anyway, I think PROGRESS is being made here. It's not that I'm misquoting Kenyon now or misrepresenting her any more, just that you doing agree with her "opinion" based partly on the Bible, which she thinks is based on tradition and word of mouth, and based on archaeological evidence. That's fine.

Truly, I just needed an LBIIA 1350-1325BCE Jericho for Joshua to destory to fit my chronology, by Biblical chronology, and I have that, so I'm happy. If you want to diminish that, that's fine. But there's no way you can get around the Amenhotep III cartouches so, this is CLOSED topic, truly. You can't move away from this any farther than you have. You want to say there is ZERO evidence of an LBIIA Jericho, but that's just not the case. Sorry.


LG47

spin

But that's only in your town. Internet's a wonderful thing.


spin

3DJay

Expertise in what? I haven't seen her present any archaeological evidence (her expertise) supporting her belief. I asked for such a quote. Where is it?
"fortunate" doesn't go with "fails".
Amenhotep III isn't an archaeological marker for Jericho. There's no archaeological marker of an exodus in Egypt, let alone one that ties him to it. That's just more bullshit.
Exactly. The Bible isn't archaeological evidence of anything. I don't care where she assigns anything, unless her professional opinion is involved. Her profession is archaeology, not theology.
Ewww, don't talk to me about your "pole"...please.
WHAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?!
I'm not saying there aren't “traces of the several houses which sprang up independently of the fortifications upon the ruins of the city at its northern end.” ~ Garstang, at the LBIIA level.

I'm saying that there's 1. No evidence of why it was abandoned. (No evidence of the described events.) 2. No evidence it had a wall. (No evidence of the described defenses.) 3. No evidence it was more than a few houses. (No evidence of the described city.) 4. No evidence of violent destruction, at Jericho, or countrywide, for that date. (No evidence anywhere, of an Israelite conquest.) 5. No evidence of the trek into Israel. 6. No evidence of the trek out of Egypt. 7. No evidence of the trek in between. 8. No evidence of what is described, in Exodus, anywhere.

I'm saying, that Kenyon's belief, about LBIIA, isn't founded on archaeological evidence, it's founded on a religious book, so doesn't count as her expert opinion.

If you just let the evidence speak, you've got...

Collapsed Wall: MBA - Y LBA - N
City: MBA - Y LBA - N
Fire: MBA - Y LBA - N
Grain: MBA - Y LBA - N
Exodus: MBA - Y (Hyksos) LBA - N


Like I said, give me one quote, of hers, where she provides ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, her expertise, for an Israelite conquest of LBIIA Jericho.


Peace

3DJay

See, no...I've googled this particular JW argument, a number of times, and it's the same guy presenting it, over and over, on numerous sites. I don't believe you. It's the same one guy going door to door, via the internet. :Cheeky:


Peace

spamandham

...especially since they were all high on magic mushrooms.

Sauron

What? You don't believe that a black, transvestite self-proclaimed Messiah of Jehovah's Witnesses has any friends?:Cheeky:

Amedeo

I was not presenting (or claiming) real evidence, precisely because, if the Israelites were in Egypt and came out of Egypt (according to the Biblical narrative), it would be impossible to obtain one kind of real evidence, namely artifacts which are distinctively Israelitic, for the simple reason that the Israelites have never been artisans, except of degradable materials, such as clothing and the like. [[Until they settled in occupied territory and cities, the Israelites were nomadic pastoral people -- not given to architecture, furniture, metallurgy, painted pottery, or other crafts beyond the needs of the pastoral life. But undoubtedly they bought or stole artifacts that they could have lost along the way. Their god-sanctioned plunder/swindling in Egypt undoubtedly made them owners of Egyptian artifacts, which they unlikely lost... if they were ever in Egypt.]]

I did not even mention the other kind of real evidence, namely epigraphic evidence, since the Israelites allegedly in Egypt and out of it did not possess the art of writing. [Their history of writing is known. It started out with the so-called Phoenician script, which, I have learned, is based on a much older Greek script, but this is another story, which would bring more charges of anti-Semitism on me. I'll deal with the story at another time, at my discretion.]

To me, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence: Once out of Egypt, the dissolute Israelites needed to be placed under laws, which Moses provided. God himself wrote the laws on the tablets. Now, as I stay within the myth, I must presume that God wrote in Egyptian, if Moses grew and learned writing in Egypt. He wrote in Hebrew, if Moses and his people had not been growing in Egypt. But in those days, the Israelites and Moses were illiterate. So, the fable of God giving Moses the written laws originated after Israelitic rabbi started recording Bible anecdotes, BUT the fable harked back to some memory that Moses had written down the laws... and the writing -- at least the script -- must have been Egyptian hieroglyphs... glyphs on stone tablets, not alphabetical letters on clay tablets. Moses crashed the stone slabs, and the pieces might still be found.

My consideration of the Israelitic enotheism and doctrine of immortality [which persisted at least until 2000 years ago] as being cultural acquisitions from the Egyptians is based on circumstantial evidence. Neither is indigenous with the Israelites. The indigenous gods [the Elohim + Yahweh] of the Israelites, in the first two chapters of Genesis, do not constitute either a monotheism or an enotheism. Enotheisn started with Moses and is stated in the First Commandment. But the covenant (by circumcision) was kept with Abraham's El, the supreme god in the Cananite or Ugaritic religion. Neither the Canaanite religion nor the Yahwehite religion prior to the Biblical one (from what is known in the Levant) held the Pharaohnic doctrine of resurrection. So, it must have been in Egypt that the Israelites acquired such a doctrine.

In one of my post, I have indicate the route of the Israelites invasion of the ancient Palestinian territory.

All of these clues do not constitute real evidence; they are "a detective's evidence," which I consider strong enough to -- mutatis mutandis -- hang a man charged of a murder. (By the detective's procedure, I have pin-pointed the place in France where the lost Ark of the Covenant is buried, but nobody wants to do the excavation and find out. [The French government forbids private digging at Rennes-le-Chateau.])

Sauron

Not true.

Amedeo, why are you guessing about these things instead of looking them up?

Steven Avery

Excellent. A truly round (or at least oval) number.
Zero.

Now please think this through. If the evidence (Biblical and geographical and historical commentary/remembrance) points to the Exodus in Arabia and not a single professional archaeologist has looked in those regions then of what significance is a claim that professional archaeologists in peer-reviewed journals have not found Exodus evidence?

The OP question..
"Why no archaeological evidence of wilderness trek?"

Would be answered by the simple response.. the folks considered
qualified by the skeptic posters here have looked in the wrong place !

(This is not necessarily an indictment of any particular archaeologist. We can discuss separately whether their failings are social, political, peer-group pressure or what.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex Well, since none are, perhaps you could give your professional qualifications as to how you know that this is "where the evidence would be"? :huh:

A good starting point would be the Bible, including Paul. With commentary from Josephus, Philo and Eusebius and Jerome. In correlation to sites that match the Biblical account.

Surely this is enough to at least place Arabia on a par with the Sinai Peninsula. As I pointed out the simplicity and historicity of this theory has forced its recognition from even folks like Frank Moore Cross and Herschel Shanks in the modern-day field.

The real question is why the theory was mostly ignored for almost a century until the Ron Wyatt expeditions of the 1970's and 80s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders Dr. Möller .. I have to defend him on one account: his Ph.D. was awarded by the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm .. an internationally highly regarded teaching and research facility.

Yep.
Thanks for the heads up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron 1. You're deliberately dodging the issue of closedmindedness and bias, which I raised.

By this do you mean the IIDB skeptic embrace of the genealogical fallacy ? That they won't discuss evidences if they can find a dismissive excuse. Yep .. that is a very good example of closedmindedness and bias.

Whether it be the misapplication of the "peer-review" question (how many peer-reviewed articles have been referenced on the Exodus and Saudi Arabia archaeology ?) Or the beliefs of the individual are used as an excuse.

Or whether they may have been spurred in their efforts by the earlier work of Ron Wyatt.

SIDENOTE:
Then we see an attempt to embrace any unsubstantiated accusation against Ron Wyatt - and then even expanding that accusation to use against those individuals who study any theory he proposed ! (In the archives I challenged some of the integrity accusations that were given here .. usually from the dubious tentmakers.org site. And there was absolutely no substantive response .. some folks here make integrity accusations of lying or planting evidence on whim .. which only casts a pallor over their own integrity.)

Returning to the skeptic biases mentioned above.

You don't get much more biased and closedminded than what we
see here. A big problem with the current crew of IIDB posters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron And nowhere did I say that Whittaker must be a PhD before I will listen to him or respect what he says. What he does have to do, however, is:[LIST][*]research the material with an open mind, not with a foreordained conclusion;[*]use solid sources;

And precisely what are the solid sources that Whittaker overlooked in writing the paper ?

Please .. share away. _______________________

Or are you saying that nobody should write about the Exodus and Saudi Arabia because (as noted above) the supposed "solid sources" the professional archaeologists, simply have done nothing ! Therefore everybody should be silent ? (Except the skeptics who use the failing of the professional archaeologists to claim "no evidence".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron There aren't any such archaeologists. Why would an archaeologist look for the Exodus where it isn't attested to have occurred?

That you still give the forum such baldfaced nonsense is a perfect example of the bias at hand. There is Bible geography and Paul and Josephus and Philo and Jewish references and all. How can you attempt to handwave away solid historical references as "non-attested".

Absolutely amazing.
A perfect example of the worst type of intellectual stagnation and bias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron Nothing, since the alleged Exodus didn't take place in Saudi Arabia.

So why not give your evidences for this assertion of yours ?
And explain how you deal with contrary references and evidences.

(An interesting note is how such unsupported skeptic assertions are not challenged by the Amaleq crew who will look for the most inconsequential and even irrelevant and answered challenges to a quotation given by a believer.)

If you can't support your claim (to the exclusion of Arabia as an alternate candidate) then please don't embarrass yourself and try to snow the forum by repeating it ad nauseum. Time to come clean and present some evidences for your assertion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery