Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 10-29-2008, 07:15 AM

A while back, I published an article about world famous archaeologist Nelson Glueck and his strong statement ...

Quote:

“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. (Glueck, Nelson, Rivers in the Desert, New York: Grove Press, 1959, pp. 31-32.)

Glueck apparently also claimed to have found King Solomon's mines in Faynan/Edom and got laughed at. But a recent discovery puts egg on the face of the laughers. Enjoy ...

Quote:

King Solomon's Copper Mines?

ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2008) — Did the Bible's King David and his son Solomon control the copper industry in present-day southern Jordan? Though that remains an open question, the possibility is raised once again by research reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...
For years, scholars have argued whether the Edomites were sufficiently organized by the 10th to 9th centuries BCE to seriously threaten the neighboring Israelites as a true "kingdom." Between the World Wars, during the "Golden Age" of biblical archaeology, scholars explored, as Levy describes it, with a trowel in one hand and Bible in the other, seeking to fit their Holy Land findings into the sacred story. Based on his 1930s surveys, American archaeologist Nelson Glueck even asserted that he had found King Solomon's mines in Faynan/Edom. By the 1980s, however, Glueck's claim had been largely dismissed. A consensus had emerged that the Bible was heavily edited in the 5th century BCE, long after the supposed events, while British excavations of the Edomite highlands in the 1970s-80s suggested the Iron Age had not even come to Edom until the 7th century BCE.

"Now," said Levy, director of the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UCSD and associate director of the new Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture and Archaeology (CISA3), "with data from the first large-scale stratified and systematic excavation of a site in the southern Levant to focus specifically on the role of metallurgy in Edom, we have evidence that complex societies were indeed active in 10th and 9th centuries BCE and that brings us back to the debate about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible narratives related to this period."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1027174545.htm

Yup. It sure does. Combine this kind of cool stuff with the ongoing demise of the Documentary Hypothesis, the "Rise of the Rohl Chronology" and such, and Biblical historicity advocates like me are finally starting to have fun again!

Toto · 10-29-2008, 09:20 AM

Hi Dave - King Solomon's Lost Mines are being discussed and rejected in this thread. Please join the discussion there if you can stand the heat.

deadman_932 · 10-29-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. (Glueck, Nelson, Rivers in the Desert, New York: Grove Press, 1959, pp. 31-32.)

"Tyre", "Jericho" -- just to name two.

Also, as has already been amusingly pointed out to you in another forum:

"For Glueck to be right, and for you to use this research as support, you must accept the validity of RC dating!" (Faid)

spin · 10-29-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

A while back, I published an article about world famous archaeologist Nelson Glueck and his strong statement ...

Quote:

“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. (Glueck, Nelson, Rivers in the Desert, New York: Grove Press, 1959, pp. 31-32.)

Glueck, an Albright trained bible and spade man, is nowhere in sight in modern archaeological analyses. The only thing that he is used for is his reports on the archaeological sites he wrote up. The Albright blunder is long dead. Real archaeologists are mostly doing the job these days. Biblical Archaeology is dead.

You should read some modern Israeli archaeology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Yup. It sure does. Combine this kind of cool stuff with the ongoing demise of the Documentary Hypothesis, the "Rise of the Rohl Chronology" and such, and Biblical historicity advocates like me are finally starting to have fun again!

This is funny. Although I'm no great fan of the documentary hypothesis, it's alive and doing well.

As to the Rohl redating it's living in the hearts of those who know nothing about the issues and nowhere else. Kenneth Kitchen demolished Rohl's attempts at rewriting Egyptian history. Go to a uni library and read the last five pages of the preface to Kitchen's "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk)", Aris and Philips, the 2004 edition. It was added to deal with Rohl. There is also a pdf floating around the net by Kitchen where he explains Egyptian chronology.

Even more hilarious is the fact that Rohl acolytes have to manipulate every current near eastern chronological sequence that deals with the change from Bronze to Iron ages, otherwise each and every one of them falsifies Rohl's theory. Assyria gets parallel reigns (two or more dynasties). Babylon gets parallel reigns. The Hittites and the Neo-Hittites get parallel reigns. You gotta admit it's entertaining to see how contorted these guys get.

spin

Dave Hawkins · 10-31-2008, 04:07 AM

Modern archaeological analysis. Pfft. Real archaeologists these days are finding that they should pay a little more attention to ancient texts, such as the Bible. Wellhausen and his buddies threw the baby out with the bath water and even the staunchest of DH supporters are recognizing this now. This interesting article (and many others) highlights this recent new elevated status of ancient texts ... The Budding Discipline of Geomythology ... If you think Biblical archaeology is dead, you're not paying attention, Spin. You're right about the DH being alive (but not doing well) ... old people on life support machines are alive too. As for Kitchen ... well ... you can't expect an old entrenched guy like that to change his beliefs just because a young whippersnapper comes along and proves him wrong. I understand. He'll be fighting Rohl to his death no doubt. There's nothing contorted at all about parallel reigns. In fact, it's turning out to be the rule, not the exception in many ancient nations. And why shouldn't it be the rule? You've got selfish, greedy politicians vying for power in every nation throughout all of history. That's going to cause much turmoil in leadership, splits, civil wars and what have you. The only basis for people like you believing in nice, neat, orderly, single lines of succession is the perennial desire to inflate chronologies. Why do you like to inflate? Maybe because you don't want the Bible to be correct? People like you seem to break out in hives at the very thought of the Bible's short chronology possibly being correct. 'The Bible must be proven wrong and the Fundies silenced' seems to be the primary goal.

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

10-29-2008, 09:20 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Dave - King Solomon's Lost Mines are being discussed and rejected in this thread. Please join the discussion there if you can stand the heat.

10-31-2008, 04:07 AM	#5
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Modern archaeological analysis. Pfft. Real archaeologists these days are finding that they should pay a little more attention to ancient texts, such as the Bible. Wellhausen and his buddies threw the baby out with the bath water and even the staunchest of DH supporters are recognizing this now. This interesting article (and many others) highlights this recent new elevated status of ancient texts ... The Budding Discipline of Geomythology ... If you think Biblical archaeology is dead, you're not paying attention, Spin. You're right about the DH being alive (but not doing well) ... old people on life support machines are alive too. As for Kitchen ... well ... you can't expect an old entrenched guy like that to change his beliefs just because a young whippersnapper comes along and proves him wrong. I understand. He'll be fighting Rohl to his death no doubt. There's nothing contorted at all about parallel reigns. In fact, it's turning out to be the rule, not the exception in many ancient nations. And why shouldn't it be the rule? You've got selfish, greedy politicians vying for power in every nation throughout all of history. That's going to cause much turmoil in leadership, splits, civil wars and what have you. The only basis for people like you believing in nice, neat, orderly, single lines of succession is the perennial desire to inflate chronologies. Why do you like to inflate? Maybe because you don't want the Bible to be correct? People like you seem to break out in hives at the very thought of the Bible's short chronology possibly being correct. 'The Bible must be proven wrong and the Fundies silenced' seems to be the primary goal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.