ok well im gonna post the first bump here and having a laugh at the same time..id say this thread will run for about the next 3 years..300 plus posts..good man george..LOL

Yea think I may make this my last post and sit back and enjoy the action!!!

I don't think this is nothing new.

Anyone who has studied just a little about history/archaelogy knows that much of what we think we know we don't know for certain.

History, similar to physics is simply an explination with likelihood of certainty.

Unlike physics, history has ridicilously little certainty. We don't know anything 1000+ years back really with much certainty. Most of our history is derived from the written word, liable, and hearsay. Little of what is written can ever be co-oberated (imagine a historian in the future trying to prove/disprove that the USA war on Iraq was 100% motivated by oil using an archaeological record).

Most is simply conjecture etc.

There is no archaeological record that Moses ever existed, Abraham, Jesus, or Mohammed. There is a vast historical record however that these figures did indeed exist. Therefore, we think it is most likely they did exist (unless we assume for some reason that the Roman scribes had a reason to makeup Jesus, etc).

Using Archaeology to disprove history is quiet ridicilous. You use the archaeological record to either bring support or break down the support of a historical argument, but if you form a hisotircal argument through archaeolgoy alone, its simply going to be and stay a weak argument, especially if the theory describes intangible things such as war, peace, thought, politics, and power.

Obviously one actually has to look at his findings to be able to either support or refutre his conclusion. The article links only display his conclusions, so I can not say he is wrong or not.

I'm suspicous though as in the article Mr. Finkelstine says that "Jericho was not fortified and had no walls, and it's doubtful that there was a settlement there at the time". That statement alone is odd to me as from what I recall Jericho is the oldest continually-inhabitated city and the oldest walled city on earth.

Not all the bible is the historical absolute (your shocked I know :rolleyes. Obviously Judea was never the a vast, rich kingdom (it never claimed to be though either) when one compares it to the weatlh/territory/populations of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylon, etc.

It was never very big, most people were shepards, and the Kingdom enjoyed the added wealth of simply being a strategic geopolitical (by taxing trade routes).

Anyway it just seems like a mute point. I'm just wondering what "new" archaeology Mr. Finklestein has uncovered to prove his conclusion ... I didn't get any sense that there is new archaeology so I'm quiet skeptical why there is a new argument...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus imagine a historian in the future trying to prove/disprove that the USA war on Iraq was 100% motivated by oil using an archaeological record

To be fair, he'd just use the internet...

Anyway, historical records are archaeology (if they came from the right time)

Archaeology can never prove opinions, but it can prove or disprove dates or events - if the Israelites came from Egypt, there would have been shit loads of evidence in the Sinai...yet there is nothing whatsoever (which means the Exodus didn't happen, and your actually Palestinians! )

wouldn't this be bad for the religions based off of judisim as well?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 wouldn't this be bad for the religions based off of judisim as well?

Yep

Altho you could argue it would be worse for Judaism as thats the only religion that based their rights to a state on it...

(Altho even that claim isn't too much affected by this archaeologists claims)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yep Altho you could argue it would be worse for Judaism as thats the only religion that based their rights to a state on it... (Altho even that claim isn't too much affected by this archaeologists claims)

and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

What Muslim right are you refering to?

Wow! What's next? Don't tell me that Noah's flood didn't happen either!!!

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Wow! What's next? Don't tell me that Noah's flood didn't happen either!!!

Well...

quote:

and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

Can't I say the same for Christianity where they stole the ideas of Christ and added bits and pieces later on Ecumenial councils, as Christianity has undisputed similaritities with several other self professed or rumoured deities around the time.

Sorry for knocking ya down, just thought you wanted to know that bit of info