Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man

Hello Willowtree. Back again I see.

Actually, there is a 9th century b.c. stone tablet that references a 'house of david', and 'King of Israel'. That would be about 250 years
after the reign of David. The excavated city it was in (south of jerusalum) probably never had more that 4000 people in it ever.David is likely to have existed based on that, but his reign was probably very very exagerated.

And he was looking for evidence.How is the lack of evidence of a 'heathen victory' during this time evidence FOR King David?

That is making a lot of assumptions there. It certainly isn't anything I would count as evidence.Again.. how is the absense of evidence of any defeat or battles evidence FOR King David?Your assuming that the bible is right, so the absense of evidence means the bible is right.You need something more than absense of evidence, and the assumption that the bible is correct.

Well,If the 'deniers' have no place to go, then these articles can be put in a peer reviewed archelogical magazine. I see a bunch of heiroglyphics on the wall, I don't have the ability to read them. Anybody can put photos on the wall, and insist they mean Moses was there. However, that is appealing to the public directly, rather than going through a peer reviewed process.If the evidence is as remarkable as you claim, where is the peer reviewed archelogical paper on it? I mean , without that peer review, you can have all sorts of religiously motivated, but mistaken claims.

The indictment has nothing to do with the fact that the stone was a forgery (although finding a lab to put a false pateina in, as well as many 'works in process' for faking is a good indication).What was important is that the pateina was demonstrated to have been artifically applied in modern times, using chalk, and 2000 year old charcol (to fool the radiocarbon dating). However, the patina was not tightly bonded to the stone, and it was shown that it was applied at the tempature of 120 degress farenhight (warm water).

quote:

---

Never made this silly claim as you know. My claims about God are from the Bible - you know the source which claims to be His word ?

---

Well, other people read the same words (or maybe the words in context), and come to totally different conclusions than you do. Others do not accept the same pieces of writing as you do as being from God.So, no, your concept of God might be influenced by the bible, but it is not from the bible.Now, it seems you took your theology from the interpretaiton of that con man supreme, the now thankfully departed promoter of British Israelism, ufo's and pyriamid power, Dr. Gene Scott. He did know how to say 'Tithe, or look forward to "sliding down the slimy chute straight to Hell" though.