Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-05-2006, 05:40 PM

Thanks; that's roughly what I remembered. I know that the famous "mask of Agamemnon" isn't really connected to Agamemnon - that was a Schliemann romanticisation. But I vaguely thought they had found some other Homeric names, too, in Mycenean excavations - Menelaos, perhaps? And of course there are plenty of real place names. (SM Stirling draws a lot on this in the alternate history/SF Island in the Sea of Time, BTW. I found that quite a fun read.)

Anyway, assuming rob117 is correct - is the Bible notably different? Better, worse?

Mikezrh · 03-06-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Not only is there no evidence FOR any of the OT history up until about the 8th Century BCE, an awful lot of it is directly contradicted be the archaelogical evidence.

Firstly, I'm new to this forum so please excuse me if I mention something that's been discussed previously.

Secondly, I found Finklestein & Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed" quite an eye-opener. Excellent reading. Last month I came across a report in Biblical Archaeology Review (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/mazar.pdf) announcing the discovery of what is speculated as being King David's palace outside the northern wall of the Fortress of Zion. I'm waiting to hear more on the outcome of this. If the structure is confirmed as being David's palace, Finklestein & Silberman may need to adjust some of their conclusions re: the reign of David (maybe not a "hill tribe chieftain"). Has anyone else seen any similar reports on this? I'm not familiar with Eilat Mazar or her work.

Mike

Toto · 03-06-2006, 02:06 PM

Welcome Mikezrh!

You will find some discussion of the alleged King David's Palace in this thread: Israeli Archeologist Claims to Find King David's Palace, with some fairly skeptical comments.

Finkelstein was quoted in the Washington Post:

Quote:

Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology said Mazar's interpretation should be understood as the latest in a series of "messianic eruptions" designed to bolster the image of David as a ruler of an important civilization, an idea that has lost currency in recent years in part because of Finkelstein's writing against it.

"That is why you are seeing this interpretation, to counter that momentum against it," said Finkelstein, co-author of the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts."

"It's an important find, and I'm not underestimating it," he said. "But from what she has found to the palace of David is a big distance."

. . .

But Finkelstein said Mazar's find appeared to show that Jerusalem, while perhaps not important during David's time, began emerging as an important city earlier than he previously believed.

"This is the missing link we have been looking for. It represents the first step in the rise of Jerusalem to prominence in the 9th century," he said. "Why does it have to be the palace of David? Once you bring that in you sound like something of a lunatic."

King Rat · 03-06-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

That is a convenient reversal of fortunes:-)

Reena, the best thing to do is actually look at the pics on the Net carefully (Google "Wyatt Sodom Gomorrah").
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

When folks tell you that they are "natural" or caused by some other event, or simply "sand dunes" ask them to show you similar formations for comparison. Also make sure they have plenty of sulphur.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Those pictures are evidence alright. If you have ever been to the American West/Southwest you'd recognize those features immediately. They are the remnants of lake shorelines and sand dunes. I camp in Southern Utah and Nevada frequently and features like these are commonplace. Ziggurats and Sphinxes? Freakin' hilarious.

Steven Avery · 03-06-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Rat

Those pictures are evidence alright. If you have ever been to the American West/Southwest you'd recognize those features immediately. They are the remnants of lake shorelines and sand dunes. I camp in Southern Utah and Nevada frequently and features like these are commonplace. Ziggurats and Sphinxes? Freakin' hilarious.

Hi Folks. I suggest each one of you who really has their own mind firmly in place, place the pictures side by side, like the earlier claim about Bryce Canyon. We have a number of such offhand hand-waving debunking claims including "sand dunes".

Then I suggest you study the issues about the sulphur balls that are abundant in the ash areas, and the various patterns within the cities, and the city patterns as a whole, and the chemical compositions involved in the sulphur balls and the ash, and that compared to other areas. Also the historical aspects, including Josephus and Ebla and more. A lot of that is on the 45 minute tape and there is additional material in different forms (The Exodus Case book, a new DVD, various articles discussing different issues, and about a dozen web pages that have complementary information). Ironically, the debunkers generally say next to nothing other than what is above as with the Bryce Canyon pic or an offhand comment, which is all far from what is involved here. As usual, Answers in Genesis patchquileted a couple of very paltry debunkings together. No pics. No substantive analysis, no dialog.

Reena and the others, I suggest you simply look the evidences with your own eyes. The goal of the mockers, the swearing and all, is to intimidate. However God has given each one of us excellent abilities to discern truth.

Shalom,
Steven

FatherMithras · 03-06-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Reena and the others, I suggest you simply look the evidences with your own eyes. The goal of the mockers, the swearing and all, is to intimidate. However God has given each one of us excellent abilities to discern truth.

Maybe you haven't been reading, but above their are a few people who HAVE llooked at the pics, and others like them, and these have been proven to be natural formations. Nature can do interesting stuff! Look at the "atlantis pyramids" in Asia (I forget the exct name) which look alot like mayan pyramids but turned out to be due to underwater erosion.

King Rat · 03-06-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks. I suggest each one of you who really has their own mind firmly in place, place the pictures side by side, like the earlier claim about Bryce Canyon. We have a number of such offhand hand-waving debunking claims including "sand dunes".

I'll take pictures myself next time I'm down Southern Utah way. I know of many formations identical to the ones that you linked to. Sulphur and all. In fact, there are formations just like you describe Northeast of where I live as well, in the Book Cliffs region. Full of sulphur and little sulphur deposits just like the ones in your link. You see this entire region used to be underwater, under a pre-historic lake called lake Bonneville. No hand waving here, just plain old boring geology.

Quote:

Then I suggest you study the issues about the sulphur balls that are abundant in the ash areas, and the various patterns within the cities, and the city patterns as a whole, and the chemical compositions involved in the sulphur balls and the ash, and that compared to other areas. Also the historical aspects, including Josephus and Ebla and more. A lot of that is on the 45 minute tape and there is additional material in different forms (The Exodus Case book, a new DVD, various articles discussing different issues, and about a dozen web pages that have complementary information). Ironically, the debunkers generally say next to nothing other than what is above as with the Bryce Canyon pic or an offhand comment, which is all far from what is involved here. As usual, Answers in Genesis patchquileted a couple of very paltry debunkings together. No pics. No substantive analysis, no dialog.

Well you've got me now and I'll post side by side pictures when I take them. It will be months before I get back that way again. But I've written a note to myself to create argumentum ad photographum for the theist guy who can't search geological websites for himself. You'll be around months from now right? I'd hate to go through all the trouble for just another drive-by theist...

Quote:

Reena and the others, I suggest you simply look the evidences with your own eyes. The goal of the mockers, the swearing and all, is to intimidate. However God has given each one of us excellent abilities to discern truth.

Shalom,
Steven

That's rich from a guy who linked to somebody else's work. You've been to the linked to location often I take it? Because if you haven't your last comment comes off pretty lame.

Mikezrh · 03-07-2006, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You will find some discussion of the alleged King David's Palace in this thread: Israeli Archeologist Claims to Find King David's Palace, with some fairly skeptical comments.

Thanks, Toto. Great to see that this topic has aired in a previous thread. I also found the Washington Post article you mentioned. One quote from that article:

"Seymour Gitin, director of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, said it was too soon to know precisely what Mazar had found. But, he said, “if this can be proven to be 10th century, it demolishes the view of the minimalists,” referring to those who dismiss the unified monarchy as a petty kingdom or even as mythical.
“This find is so unusual that to really understand it she needs to keep digging,” Gitin said."

Can hardly wait to find out just what it is that Mazar has uncovered.

Mike

Joe Meert · 03-07-2006, 10:53 AM

Well, those are some very interesting erosional structures in the volcanic ash. Unfortunately, they are not buildings. The region is volcanically and tectonically active. The Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and East African rift form a triple point where the continental crust is breaking apart. The 'interpretation' of the shapes and the 'artifacts' show how much the human mind can imagine 'design' when it's all part of natures erosional action. I remember a quote from undergrads when we were looking at the Bandelier tuff out in New Mexico "Gee that tuff is awfully soft". Show those pictures to any geologist and they will tell you that all are naturally formed in volcanic regions. Move along folks, shows over.

CHeers

Joe Meert

http://www.hi.is/~hannesm/Capelas.html (very nice photos of tuffs and seashells in tuffs)
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/virtualvisit/tuffcanyon.htm
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/ac...neous/tuff.jpg
http://troi.cc.rochester.edu/~mchs/Turkey2.htm (man made and natural structures)
http://www.robnessler.com/images_11/ge1118_l.jpg
http://www.painetworks.com/photos/hf/hf0978.JPG

Joe Meert · 03-07-2006, 01:40 PM

The Afar triple junction

and another ash picture

http://www.theoutdoorforum.com/Arizona/images/PFNP.gif

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

03-05-2006, 05:40 PM	#51
cajela Guest Posts: n/a	Thanks; that's roughly what I remembered. I know that the famous "mask of Agamemnon" isn't really connected to Agamemnon - that was a Schliemann romanticisation. But I vaguely thought they had found some other Homeric names, too, in Mycenean excavations - Menelaos, perhaps? And of course there are plenty of real place names. (SM Stirling draws a lot on this in the alternate history/SF Island in the Sea of Time, BTW. I found that quite a fun read.) Anyway, assuming rob117 is correct - is the Bible notably different? Better, worse?

03-07-2006, 10:53 AM	#59
Joe Meert Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Gainesville Posts: 1,224	Well, those are some very interesting erosional structures in the volcanic ash. Unfortunately, they are not buildings. The region is volcanically and tectonically active. The Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and East African rift form a triple point where the continental crust is breaking apart. The 'interpretation' of the shapes and the 'artifacts' show how much the human mind can imagine 'design' when it's all part of natures erosional action. I remember a quote from undergrads when we were looking at the Bandelier tuff out in New Mexico "Gee that tuff is awfully soft". Show those pictures to any geologist and they will tell you that all are naturally formed in volcanic regions. Move along folks, shows over. CHeers Joe Meert http://www.hi.is/~hannesm/Capelas.html (very nice photos of tuffs and seashells in tuffs) http://www.nps.gov/bibe/virtualvisit/tuffcanyon.htm http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/ac...neous/tuff.jpg http://troi.cc.rochester.edu/~mchs/Turkey2.htm (man made and natural structures) http://www.robnessler.com/images_11/ge1118_l.jpg http://www.painetworks.com/photos/hf/hf0978.JPG

03-07-2006, 01:40 PM	#60
Joe Meert Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Gainesville Posts: 1,224	The Afar triple junction and another ash picture http://www.theoutdoorforum.com/Arizona/images/PFNP.gif

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.