biblical archaeology

For example, the main reason we know for a fact that the Biblical description of the conquest of Canaan is wrong is archaeology. We can read the letters remaining from the period and area, we can see that Egypt was still in control except for a few of the most northern city states. There is no indication of any invading army, any Hebrews. We also know that many of the cities mentioned as being large walled towns were not even ocuppied and other were but villages at the time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buz, that's not archaeology. Neither the wheel or the beach has been surveyed or confirmed by ANY archaeologists.When some of the assertions are confirmed by independant peer review, bring the evidence here. We'd love to be shown wrong.We've been over this many, many times in the past, most recently in Message 1, Message 1 and Message 1. So far no one has stepped up with ANY archaeological evidence whatsoever.Nope, so far there is NO evidence whatsoever that there was ever an Exodus as described in the Bible and there is overwhelming evidence that the Conquest of Canaan as descibed in the Bible simply never happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I would not say worthless. However they add NO support to the theology of the Bible at all. They are valuable. For example, the cites she has related to Jericho prove that the Biblical account is incorrect. No one said, as her messages implied, that there was no interaction between Edom and the Hebrews, what folk said was that there was no evidence of Hebrew-Edomite connections.In Jackie's links, there could well be very valuable references to archaeological discoveries. Yes, as I have said before, I have seen the video. And it is certainly not persuasive. In addition, I have commented here many, many times on the alleged photographic evidence. Most of it has been obviouosly doctored or misinterpreted. For example, the alleged guard shack is not a guard shack at all (gate does not corresponde with the door, there are no observation windows in the structure), the pictures of the wheels have been "enhanced", the glyphs are common throughout the area and date to a period approxiamtely 2000 years before the alleged Exodus, the altar is not an altar, the alleged calves are not calves, there are also phallic symbols, hunting scenes and other critters mixed in, the so called "Egyptian Style Bull Glyph" is a doctored picture of two separate glyphs where the producers smuged out the phallic symbol.Sorry buz but the video is simply a fraud.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, most do not. They add NO historical support and, as I said, in many cases they prove the Biblical account wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, none actually support the historical accounts other than very indirectly. For example, I can write a complete fiction where I mention the B&O roundhouse. The fact that the B&O roundhouse exists, is not support for my fictional account beyond the simple fact that I used something that does or did exist as color in the fiction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No. Can't imagine where you got that idea.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Amen Brother. Preach the gospel.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not yet. So far there's no real evidence that there was a King David or anything like a Kingdom. I do think it likely that there might have been some minor City Rulers that we later expanded into the Saul and David stories of the Bible. But even that is a streatch from any archaeological finds so far.Trying to make the Bible a history or science text loses the purpose. It's there to teach us how to live. It matters not if the stories are true, contain but a grain or truth, are exagerated folktales or total myth, the meaning and message is still true.This message has been edited by jar, 01-07-2006 07:29 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't have a big issue with that.They read like other epic myths, histories of a peoples or an era. In addition, as you say, it depends greatly on what they are trying to say. They are classic Historical Novel, much like Dickens, or Steinbeck, Sir Walter Scott or Mark Twain might write.The question was "have any of the recent archaeological finds supported the Biblical Historic accounts". My point is that putting too much emphasis on the archaeology and trying to force the Bible to be a history book diminishes the message, the theology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion