Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 1:19 AM
18 online now:
4petdinos, AZPaul3, PaulK (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,886 Year: 8,922/19,786 Month: 1,344/2,119 Week: 104/576 Day: 5/99 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
17181920
21
22Next
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 301 of 317 (148146)
10-07-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Brian
10-07-2004 2:39 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi Brian:

What are you talking about ?

The Moabite Stone records a victory.

My point stands, that only in the Bible is recorded the defeats of its subject.

Where do the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians record their defeats ?

You have made a mistake or you are deliberately twisting the simple issue and point. I would rather believe the former.

sincerely,

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 2:39 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 3:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 302 of 317 (148149)
10-07-2004 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 3:19 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi WT,

Read the Moabite stone, what are the circumstances?

Why is Mesha revolting?

In case you missed it

Omri had taken possession of the land of Medeba and [his people] occupied it during his days and half the days of his son, forty years

Mesha is informing us that Omri had taken possession of the Moabite city of Medeba, and occupied it during his days and half the days of his son. Therefore, Mesha has recorded a defeat. He also records a victory, but that is irrelevant, he records a defeat.

Brian.

*edited to expand on inscription*

Brian.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-07-2004 02:41 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 3:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 4:03 PM Brian has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 303 of 317 (148154)
10-07-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Brian
10-07-2004 3:23 AM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi Brian !

Brian writes:

The continual repeating of a 40 year old quote from a dictionary that I have no idea of the context of is not evidence FOR Joshua. So, if Joshua brought occupation to an end in the 15th century do you have archaeological evidence that supports this, and if you do, what is it.

Cambridge is not a dictionary. It is a widely available comprehensive archaeology and ancient history volumes of books.

IOW, because YOU have no idea, therefore the source and evidence is somehow rendered invalid. Suppose you post archaeology evidence which seemingly disproves something I have agrued for and I give you the same ridiculous reply.

IOW, you are saying my evidence is not evidence ONLY because it supports my claims.

Well this is just great.

I suggest that you refrain from posting any evidence from any source which is 40 years old or older lest I invoke the same defense. Does your 40 year rule on validity of evidence apply to anti-Zionist Kenyon ?

I advise that you somehow obtain the source and review the quote, but please do not use lack of access to be a legitimate "refutation".

Where do any rules of debate say that evidence is not evidence unless each opponent has access to the others evidence ?

I only repeated the said evidence when another debater knowingly and fraudulently claimed that I posted no archaeology evidence. I don't need to repeat any evidence, as I will only re-invoke it when an opponent ASSERTS contrary.

Your blue box comment also seems to imply that you speak for all of archaeology.

It is a fact that archaeologists do not agree, that they are divided as is any other field of discipline.

The Cambridge report specifically states that Hazor came to an end in the 13th century. This evidence fully supports the Biblical claim that D/B were responsible.

If Debs and Barak are responsible for Hazor's final destruction and occupation came to an end in the 13th century, how do you explain subsequent occupations at Hazor?

Unsupported assertion.

You also keep avoiding to inform me if you have any evidence of an end of occupation level in the 15th century, I have asked you about 3 or 4 times if there is evidence of this.

I maybe wrong but I cannot find even one time that you asked for this evidence.

This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 02:58 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 3:23 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 5:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 304 of 317 (148157)
10-07-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Brian
10-07-2004 3:34 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
But the point is the inscription would never of been created without the victory to report.

I see you have computer access.

Caught me off guard.

WT

Edit:

Where are the inscriptions which report only defeats - my original point ?

This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 03:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 3:34 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Brian, posted 10-07-2004 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 305 of 317 (148165)
10-07-2004 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 3:54 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi WT,

IOW, because YOU have no idea, therefore the source and evidence is somehow rendered invalid. Suppose you post archaeology evidence which seemingly disproves something I have agrued for and I give you the same ridiculous reply.

The Cambridge you are using is 40 years old, things change WT. What if I produced an article from a 40 years old Athletics magazine that declares that Mr. X is the fastest man on the planet because he can run 100 metres in 10.93 seconds, is that information still accurate?

Archaeology doesnt stand still, your quote is 40 years out of date, and I am wiling to bet that it is more of a commentary than a historical claim.

IOW, you are saying my evidence is not evidence ONLY because it supports my claims.

Not at all, you actually havent produced any evidence to support that Debs and Barak attacked Hazor, you have only posted a quote in a book. What evidence does the Cambridge use to support these two people attacking Hazor? What are the artefacts that link these two to Hazor destruction, in fact, how do we know that hazor was brought to an end by the hand of man and not a natural disaster?

I suggest that you refrain from posting any evidence from any source which is 40 years old or older lest I invoke the same defense. Does your 40 year rule on validity of evidence apply to anti-Zionist Kenyon ?

Any claim thatis out-dated is invalid, a fortyyear old reference can still be valid, but Hazor has been excavated many times since the 60's, there is much more info available, read some of it.

I advise that you somehow obtain the source and review the quote, but please do not use lack of access to be a legitimate "refutation".

Well, you have the book, you can post the support that it uses, what destruiction level does it allocate to Joshua?

I only repeated the said evidence when another debater knowingly and fraudulently claimed that I posted no archaeology evidence.

But you havent posted any archaeological evidence, you posted a quote from a book that does not include any archaeological evidence!

What archaeological evidence does the book use to assosciate Debs and Barak with Hazor, what did they find at Hazor that is linked specifically to these two people?

It is a fact that archaeologists do not agree, that they are divided as is any other field of discipline.

They arent really that divided in near eastern archaeology anymore. But when they do disagree they usually provide evidence and not just opinion.

The Cambridge report specifically states that Hazor came to an end in the 13th century. This evidence fully supports the Biblical claim that D/B were responsible.

No it doesnt, this demonstrates how little you know about how archaeology works. The Cambridge quite rightly says that occupation at Hazor came to an end in the 13th century, the second half of the 13th century.

That this happened and there is a folk tale in a religious book is not enough to make a link, what material evidence do you have to link debs and Barak to Hazor?

Unsupported assertion.

Are you actually claiming that there was no subsequent occupations at Hazor after the 13th century BCE? Are you forgetting that King Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer?

Post 140 of this thread is one:

So, which end of occupation level did the Cambridge attribute to Joshua?

Post 159

Ok, the Cambridge assigns the end of Hazor to Barak. This then means that there should be ANOTHER end of Hazor level that can be assigned to Joshua. So, which end of occupation level does the Cambridge assign to Joshua?

I am sure there are others but I don't have the time to search for them.

So, just to make things clear, what destruction level does the Cambridge assign to Joshua?

That means, if your 1453 date is correct, we should have Hazor obliterated by Joshua and set on fire around 1408 BCE, do we have evidence of this?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 3:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 306 of 317 (148166)
10-07-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by PaulK
10-07-2004 4:24 AM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Paulk writes:

If you judge others on previous statements and on their world view then please share the evidence that lead you to believe that those arcaologists who assing the destruction of Hazor to Joshua do so from a desire to deny the Bible rather than from acceptance of the Biblical claim that Joshua destroyed Hazor.

IOW, no archaeologist has an anti-Bible ax to grind. If they succeed in asserting Joshua was responsible and not D/B then the Bible is proven incorrect.

Message 219

From: Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol.2, Part 2 [1975] Chapter VII "Archaeological Evidence" pages 331,332:

"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."

This has been explained to you repeatedly and you have evaded the same reply everytime.

IOW, nobody is out to prove the Bible wrong - we/atheists are objective. Honest persons know that no such animal exists - everyone has an ax to grind.

I hope Brian will allow me to exempt him from this, but Paulk is really saying that atheists have no bias against the Bible. That their worldview has zero affect on their conclusions. Only a complete moron would believe that whopper.

Brian and I agreed a long time ago that our respective worldviews are based upon the evidence. That he is an atheist because of the evidence and I am a theist because of the evidence. We argue under these assumptions.

Lets reverse your argument.

How come you reject the conclusions of scholars who are of theist worldview ? Like Dr. Scott or Dr. Rutherford or Josh McDowell ?

Whatever your answer, then for the same reason, is why I reject the sources you accept.

For the record please remember that you brought up this stupid issue first.

You are arbitrarily ignoring the archaeology evidence I have posted.

You are asserting it not to be evidence based on your subjective "expertise".

The rules of debate say to support your claims with evidence - I have.

But when I do my opponents simply assert it not to be evidence hoping the anrgy at WT Admins will go along with this blatant fraud.

Whenever a theist proves and evidences his claims, when this is perceived the opponents simply assert contrary over and over and over.

IOW, any evidence which proves you wrong cannot be valid because you cannot be wrong.

This easy approach is only pursued because you cannot refute with evidence.

For anyone unfamiliar with the issue, here is the evidence which Paulk asserts to not even be evidence.

Message 219

From: Cambridge Ancient History/Chronology, page 62 [1962]

"As might be expected, the Mycenaean pottery of Hazor XIV is still Mycenaean IIIa. In the next level, Hazor XIII, we have Mycenaean IIIb.
Consequently, the city came to an end in the 13th century.

Of outstanding importance for the chronology of the period of the Judges is the fact that there is no subsequent Canaanite level in Hazor. Hence the Canaanite kingdom of Hazor which Barak fought against should be the city of Hazor XIII.

Now the war between Israel and Hazor in Barak's time presupposes a period during which the Egyptian control of Palestine had broken down. In the vicinity of the 13th century we probably have three such periods:

1) before Sethos I

2) between about 1250 and the eighth year of Rameses III, though during part of this interval Merneptah probably re-established Egyptian control;

3) after 1150.

Periods 1 and 3 are excluded by the presensce in Hazor XIII of Mycenaean IIIb.

Hence Barak is to be dated to the second half of the 13th century."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2004 4:24 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2004 6:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 307 of 317 (148167)
10-07-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 4:03 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC

Where are the inscriptions which report only defeats - my original point ?

Your original point was:

The Bible is the only source which records the defeats of its subject - the Israelites.

The Bible also records Israel's victories, so I don't see your point.

Brian.

PS. I only have computer access at home just now, but I am getting on top of my workload now


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 4:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 308 of 317 (148183)
10-07-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 5:03 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
As I thought, you have no evidence for the motivations of those who attribute the destruction of Hazor to Joshua You TRY to imply that they are atheists - but offer no reason for doing so. And why should an atheist care ? Most atheists are quite happy to accept that the Bible is correct on many points - and for an atheist who was determined the prove the Bible wrong, he wins either way. If the destruction is due to Deborah and Barak then Joshua did not destroy Hazor and the Bible is in error. If Joshua did destroy Hazor then Deborah and Barak did not and the Bible is still wrong.

However while you have no evidence I do have some. Finkelstein and Silberman describe the views of Yigael Yadin - an archaeologist who has worked at Hazor - as being based on a belief in Joshua's conquest and the dominance of Hazor. While Hazor stood intact - according to Yadin, the Israelites could not move into significant parts of Canaan. The Book of Joshua's description of the destruction of Hazor as the culmination of the invasion therefore had to be accepted, and that is why he attributed the destruction to Joshua. I see no reason why Finkelstein and Silberman would misrepresent Yadin's views and in the absence of better evidence it seems that your assertion is false.

Now I do not reject Scott, McDowell or Rutherford's opiniosn because they are theists. I reject them because of the poor quality of their arguments. You will note that in this very thread I did not reject Rutherford's assertions out of hand - instead I pointed out the lack of evidence for his assumed co-regencies and evidence that contradicted his claims. And since the main source I used in this thread was the Bible you claim to have shown my sources are wrong in the same way refers to - the Bible ! Please identify the post where you showed that the Bibles claims were false and should not be trusted.

As to your archaeology evidence I am not ignoring it. Since none of it establishes whether it was Joshua, Deborah and Barak or someone else entirely who was responsible for the 13th Century at Hazor it simply has no bearing on when the Exodus happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 5:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:10 PM PaulK has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 309 of 317 (148201)
10-07-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by PaulK
10-07-2004 6:17 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Most atheists are quite happy to accept that the Bible is correct on many points

LOL !

If the destruction is due to Deborah and Barak then Joshua did not destroy Hazor and the Bible is in error

The Bible says Joshua destroyed Hazor.

The Bible says D/B destroyed Hazor again much later.

You only evade the two destructions because you want the Bible to be incorrect. The facts recorded in the Bible and archaeology confirm that both parties each destroyed Hazor as it was obviously re-built when D/B destroyed the Canaanite presence there for the final time.

Your position evades the Biblical record which anyone can verify for themself. You are doing exactly what you accused Rutherford of doing - asserting contrary to what we read in the Scriptures. You were proven wrong about that and now you are a glutton to be beat again.

If Joshua did destroy Hazor then Deborah and Barak did not and the Bible is still wrong.

Your atheist filter and bias is showing.

I know you believe the Bible is wrong - what else is new ?

Finkelstein and Silberman are the most biased atheists/Bible hating pseudo archaeologists the world has probably ever produced.

I don't know of anyone who takes them seriously.

Mainstream scholarship pays no attention to these secular poster boys.

Now I do not reject Scott, McDowell or Rutherford's opiniosn because they are theists. I reject them because of the poor quality of their arguments.

Yeah right. I believe you. Why would I doubt that you an atheist reject the said arguments not based upon worldview.

Like I said, I reject the sources you accept and agree with for the same reasons you reject the eminent scholars I mentioned.

This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 06:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2004 6:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2004 7:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 314 by Brian, posted 10-08-2004 3:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 310 of 317 (148210)
10-07-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 7:10 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
It seems that you prefer lies and hate-filled rants to rational discussion.

I am not evading the fact that the Bible reports two destructions of Hazor. Because the fact is that the archaeology shows only one. And you are evading that truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:31 PM PaulK has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 311 of 317 (148211)
10-07-2004 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by PaulK
10-07-2004 7:29 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Lets assume archaeology shows only one.

The Bible shows the other.

If the Bible doesn't confirm archaeology then we know that archaeology cannot be trusted or seen reliable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2004 7:29 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2004 10:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 313 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2004 3:24 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 315 by Brian, posted 10-08-2004 3:59 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 317 (148239)
10-07-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 7:31 PM


What he meant to say was . . .
quote:
Originally posted by WT

Brian and I agreed a long time ago that our respective worldviews are based upon the evidence. That he is an atheist because of the evidence and I am a theist because of the evidence. We argue under these assumptions.


quote:
Originally posted by WT

If the Bible doesn't confirm archaeology then we know that archaeology cannot be trusted or seen reliable.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15034
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 313 of 317 (148256)
10-08-2004 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 7:31 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Well, since Joshuah supposedly killed everyone and burned the city, THAT destruction has to show in the archaeological record. Archaeology can't miss destruction on that scale.

Judges 4 doesn't mention actually destroying the city, only the King.

So actually it looks as if you could make a case that it was Joshua that destroyed Hazor in the 13th Century - and the Hazor of Judges was just the later "poor settlement" founded in the ruins. But then you can't have a 15th Century Exodus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 314 of 317 (148261)
10-08-2004 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 7:10 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi WT,

Finkelstein and Silberman are the most biased atheists/Bible hating pseudo archaeologists the world has probably ever produced.

I don't know of anyone who takes them seriously.

Mainstream scholarship pays no attention to these secular poster boys.

This is hilarious WT !!!

Finkelstein is one of the most respected scholars involved in this debate today.

Can you name three 'mainstream' scholars/archaeologists that pay no attention to Finkelstein or Silberman?

You probably have to look up the meaning of 'psuedo', then look at the resumes of these two scholars.

Brian.

PS BTW, I do not agree with everything that Finkelstein believes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3122 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 315 of 317 (148262)
10-08-2004 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object
10-07-2004 7:31 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Hi WT,

If the Bible doesn't confirm archaeology then we know that archaeology cannot be trusted or seen reliable.

Which is a hopeless stance for trying to refute my 13th century date that is based mainly on archaeological evidence!

My 13th century date still looks very tempting.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-07-2004 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by jar, posted 10-08-2004 7:06 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
17181920
21
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019