|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: biblical archaeology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4464 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
I found his ideas very interesting, though. They suggest that there is at least the possibility of truth in the Old Testement accounts. I don't really like the idea myself, but I was willing to accept that possibility.
Just out of curiosity, would you have any links that show how much like Hovind he is? Far be it for me to make an uninformed decision regarding some one's work... The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi Rock Hound,
quote: You're likely correct as far as looking for specific biblical corroboration. However, the first serious archaeological expedition to provide such corroboration was probably the excavation of Ur. This expedition, a joint undertaking by the British Museum and the University Museum of Pennsylvania and under the directorship of Sir Leonard Wooley, was carried out between the years of 1922 and 1934.
quote: David, Solomon and Moses "might" have existed, but I'm pretty sure that Whatnot was just a myth
quote: No, I also don't think that the bible is a complete fabrication. I am hoping that this thread will be a joint effort to assemble the available and actual facts pertaining to each individual archaeological discovery so that we can then make an educated evaluation of the implications. Since I doubt that messenjaH or Pringlesguy7 will mind, you can if you wish, pick a particular archaeological find relating to either the sojourn in Egypt or the exodus and we will begin with that. Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4464 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
I'll have to check back on that - I suspect that you know far more about this subject than me.
One aspect of Rohl's book that I found very interesting was the apparent mis-dating of the ancient Egyptian chronology. He asserted that it may have been over-extended by as much as a thousand years(?) and as a result events detailed in the Old Testement were 'out of synch' with archaeological findings. What would your opinion of this be? The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Rohl attacks early Biblical archaeologists for jumping to conclusions that supported the Bible and then does the same thing himself.
Rohl's rewriting of Egyptian chronology has been rejected by mainstream Egyptologists. Here's one site discussing it. Stijlvol interieur in Scandinavisch design BGA.NL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4464 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Interesting... What's the solution then? Which dating system should be used, if both are based on erroneous conclusions?
Perhaps his chronology is incorrect, but I thought his evidence for revising the conventional chronology was compelling at least. The Shoshenk = Shishak thing, for example... More debate in this area would be useful. Maybe if you started with the parts of the conventional chronology that are not connected with the bible, then went from there? The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
From my reading the old equation of Shoshonk = Shishak is most probably correct. Rphl's alternative requires that the Biblical account uses a relatively obscure alternative name for no apparent reaon.
I would say that Rohl has some interesting ideas but the weight of evidence is against him, and his own tendancy to jump to conclusions undermines his chances of finding anything of genuine value. The real upsets will probably come from the archaeologists working in Israel now. There is a very real dispute, for instance, over whether there was ever a united kingdom ruling Israel and Judah - it is possible that the historical David and Solomon (if there were such people - that is itself not certain) ruled Judah and not Israel.I would suggest reading _The Bible Unearthed_ by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, as an introduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Oh, what sweat and strain might have been avoided had only Moses (or whomever) seen fit to name the Pharaoh of the oppression. Alas!
I first became aware of David Rohl's new chronological theories (quite by accident) via a television documentary on which he happened to be discussing his ideas. This was many years ago, and while I have since read various discussions and articles outlining his work, I have not read his books. (But that's alright because if I purchase just one more book from Amazon this year I can claim them as a dependent on my tax return) From what I have read, however, I concur with IrishRockhound that Dr. Rohl (I presume he has his PhD by now) should not be simply dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, he does make some connections which I think are weak and, in some cases, even contra-indicative. If I understand correctly, some problems arise when trying to equate the proposed "new" Egyptian chronology with Babylonian records. I will, however, need to do some research to become familiar not only with his position on this, but also in regard to his proposed archaeo-astronomical connections. I am more familiar with the Amarna letters and because the conventional Hebrew chronology remains unaffected (as it is derived primarily from Assyrian and biblical records), I would be on safer ground discussing Dr. Rohl's proposal that the Amarna period was contemporary with the united kingdoms period of Judea/Israel. There are several particulars I would like to eventual discuss concerning this period such as, Dr. Rohl's identification of Dadua as David, and Labayu as Saul as well as the implications of Rameses II reigning as Pharaoh during this period. For now, however, I will confine my questions and comments to the identification of the "habiru" and a short reference to the Merneptah Stela. It is my understanding that in the early days of archaeology, if was considered that the term habiru (hapiru, apiru, hapiri) was synonomous with "Hebrew" (stemming from "ibri"). Subsequent data accumulation seems to indicate that this is incorrect. Basically, the wide geographical and temporal range over which this term has been found to have been used, indicates that it is a generic term applied to a social category as opposed to a specific ethnic group. An interesting reference to the hapiri, occurs in the Hittite treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru. The final portion of this document is an invocation of the gods (to seal the treaty). The relevant section reads: ". . . (numerous gods listed) . . . the Lulahhi gods and the hapiri gods . . . the gods and goddesses of Hatti (Hittite) land (and) the gods and goddesses of Amurru land, all the olden gods." [ "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", James B. Pritchard ed.; Princeton University Press, 1969] (emphasis mine). It would seem from this that if the hapiri (habiru) are identified with the ancient Hebrews, then the ancient Hebrews were apparently polytheistic. Also, from the papyrus Leiden 348: ". . . the apiru who drag stone for the great pylon of the Rameses II Beloved of Truth." If then, the apiru are Hebrews and (as Dr. Rohl suggests) Ramses II reigned during the united kingdoms period, (and from additional references to apiru in Egypt); apparently there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt between the events of the Exodus and the reign of Solomon. Considering the ten plaques (especially the death of all the Egyptian firstborn), the fleecing of the Egyptians wealth and the death of the former Pharaoh and his army by drowning in the sea ("of reeds?), the idea that a Hebrew would be allowed to "live" in Egypt (even as a slave) during this period seems unlikely. One additional document relating to the reign of Rameses II coinciding with the united kingdoms is: "(The hymn of) joy at the Accession of Mer-en-Ptah" or "The Merneptah Stela" in which Israel is mentioned. The relevant passage reads: "Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt." [Ibid. pg. 378] According to orthodox chronology, Merneptah succeeded Rameses II c. 1214 b.c. If Dr. Rohl's chronology places Rameses II in the united kingdoms period, then Merneptah would be reigning in either the last years of the united kingdom period or perhaps the early years of the divided kingdom period. However, according to J.K. Hoffmeier, "The name of Israel is written with the determinative for people, distinctive from the other names in the inscription that are written with the determinative for territory. This indicates that the Israelites were not a settled people at this time, but were pastoralists living in tents. [J. K. Hoffmeier, "Israel in Egypt, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997] I can only suspect that Dr. Rohl must have some explanation for this because it makes little sense as it stands. The Israeli people could not have been an established kingdom and have no established territory, both at the same time. I look forward to your comments. Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1268 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: For starters the existence of Solomon or his temple? -BBC newsBBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Biblical Temple' tablet found THE TWO GREAT PILLARS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLEby W.B.Don Falconer http://users.libero.it/fjit.bvg/solomon2.html edited to replace extensive cut and pastes with links - AdminAsgara These are two articles that support the existence of Solomon and/or his temple. -------------------chris [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1268 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Sodom & Gomorrah Rediscovered
Shows evidence for the location of Sodom, actual balls of sulfur were found, just read this and look at the pics for the obvious reality of this biblical location.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi messenjaH,
Let's stick with one point at a time, okay? The first example in your post refers to the Joash inscription. If you will look carefully you will see that the date on the article you linked to is Jan. 14, 2003. This article references a preliminary examination of the stela and (again, if you look closely) you will see that the phrase used is "if the stela proves to be authentic." Since the time this article was written that has proven not to be the case. The Joash stela was brought to us by Oded Golan, the same charlatan that brought us the James ossuary. He was arrested for fraud on July 21 and police presented (as evidence) large amounts of forgery equipment that was found in his home. I know you are young; when you get as old and cynical as I am you will be more reluctant to just accept any story without critical examination. Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hello again messenjaH,
The second example you link to in your post was: THE TWO GREAT PILLARS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLEby W.B.Don Falconer Did you read this article? If so, I don't understand why you presented it. I found no reference to the finding of any archaeological relics from Solomon's temple. The article is merely speculation on the possible architectural style of Solomon's temple based on the style of temples found at other locations. In fact as far as I have been able to ascertain, and echoed in the words of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman: ". . . the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth and early twentieth century excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex." ["The Bible Unearthed", Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Slberman; Touchstone pub., New York, 2002] Don't misunderstand me. It is my opinion that Saul, David and Solomon were actual people and rulers in Judah. There are also, however, good reasons to think that the biblical accounts of their achievements and exploits are less than factual. Also, it is preferable that you research your examples as much as possible before presenting them. This will automatically reduce the overall bulk of material and relieve others of the burden of doing your homework for you. Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1268 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Despite minimalists opinions they cannot contend with the findings that do not support their theories. I don't see any evidence thaqt disproves the Bible's account of these peoples. My first two links may have not been that good but the Sodom link was, at least. I don't have the resources that many do have, but that doesn't matter really, and I think disproving the Bible is a lost cause, especially historically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi,
In regard ot the Merneptah Stele, there is no garauntee that the 'Israel' mentioned in the Stele is the 'Israel' of the Hebrew Bible. There is nothing in the Stele to suggest that they are one and the same. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The balls themselves were composed of pressed pure powder sulfur. Checking with volcanic experts around the world confirmed that no where else in the world, even around volcanic activity, were any balls of this composition found.
Off topic, I know, but sulfur is a vapor above 444.6 Celsius. It didn't fall as 5000 degree balls.
When the balls had fallen from heaven, they were estimated to be around 5,000 degrees Celsius (or around 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi
and I think disproving the Bible is a lost cause, especially historically. I agree with the first part of your statement. Disproving the Bible in regard to the primary history is a lost cause because it has already been disproven. The reality is, there was no enslavement or Exodus AS the Bible claims, it MAY have happened on a much smaller scale, but the Biblical accounts of these events are either exaggerated or fantasy. The second part of your statment is misguided. Historically is exactly the way in which the Bible can be disproven, theologically is different, and it is the 'ifs' and 'maybes' that keep the maximalists in corn. Brian
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024