The Bible Unearthed

[Robert Tulip]

P.O.C. [Proof of Concept] book or article that comes down the pick from some wanna be. If you have the answer to dating the shards, post it, explain it, or watch the video and put it into your own words. But I will tell you this, that you might as well search for Russell's teapot as determine the date and legitimacy of the shards. Even if you can date them, and say who made them, there are no conclusions which you can draw from thier presence except that they are there. It is a complete waste of time.

The Bible Unearthed is far more than 'proof of concept'. It presents findings from an emerging scholarly consensus. The 'concept' that Stahrwe suggests it seeks to 'prove' is that systematic archaeology provides consistent information about the past. This concept is rejected by fundamentalists because they have invested so much moral capital in believing that the fictional tales in the Bible are literal history. Fundamentalists are outside the scholarly consensus and are ignored, except by their mass audience on television and in the pews, where they systematically deceive the gullible public with impunity and no accountability.

Pottery sherds are readily dated because the styles of manufacture vary consistently over time. In places like Israel there is rubbish from all the ages of human occupation just sitting on the ground, as well as buried beneath layers of later rubble. Statistical analysis of the material found on the ground over large areas provides important information about the location, date and type of human settlement. Looking around the region of Jerusalem, the clear evidence shows the region was backward and isolated at the time of King David, and only became an imperial center at the time of King Josiah, who made up the stories of David as self-serving efforts to legitimize and advance his political and religious goals. Fundamentalist illogic rejects this rigorous scientific finding because it discredits their wrong beliefs.

[Interbane]

I objected to the expense of the book, true, but I also objected to the time to read every P.O.C. book or article that comes down the pick from some wanna be.

You will have a thousand questions that could be answered by reading the book. Each answer supplied to you will elicit an additional question or contest, ad infinitum. If what you classify as a POC is Murdock's book, and you base it on the problems you posted here many months ago, then it's your classification that is faulty. For every problem you find, I can find you two critical errors in an apologetics book. It's human nature to make mistakes. Some things you've thought were mistakes actually weren't. For example, the nonsensical problem with the call to Abram.

Just read the transcript and save everyone a lot of time. At least then you'll have vastly narrowed down what you consider 'problems' to a manageable handful.

[stahrwe]

The only person at BT whose "depth" is in question, is of course you Stahrwe. You've displayed such shallows of human intellect in these conversations that your mind is best described - metaphorically - as a Banana River Red Fish flat. Whereas most of the people you speak to around here are in the range of the Islamorada Hump in comparison.

I just left you a link to a free download of TBU and you still refuse to read the very book that answers your many questions about Finkelsteins archaeological techniques and dating methods. Robert's told you that the answers are in the book. Yet you continue to refuse the book, or even the video documentary about the book. That displays the shallows of your intellect for all to see and consider Stahrwe, don't think that it doesn't...

I don't think you have or have read the book. If you have it tell me what page his dating methodology is on, or if you wish to be obdurate tell me a range of 20 pages.

[tat tvam asi]

Are you still making up reasons to not read it?

It certainly looks that way. And why do you keep demanding to be spoon fed information by all of us? The only thing that comes to mind right now is a distant memory I have of seeing the devil behind things like books that question the bible and / or God. I also remember a certain superstious fear that if you allow the devil close enough, he may get you. And I remember hearing tall tales about evangleists falling victim to satanists and atheist's and other such nonesense aimed at trying to put fear into the minds of the religious masses.

Is that it Stahrwe?

Do you fear that evil Finkelstein Jew? lol

Come on, be honest.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
What can you conclude about artifacts found on the surface of the ground?
Where did they come from? no way to know
Who put them there? no way to know
Who made them? no way to know
How old are then? no way to know

At this point I have not read the book… yet… but even now I know that unearthed pottery, coins, weapons and even paper and cloth can be dated without having been found in its buried state.

Methods used vary, but they consist of looking at a great many qualities determined by the object in question… coins may be dated… but aside from that the materials, the construction method, the style, any writings or pictures on the artifact, impurities in the material, the composition of the paint or dyes used, even the type of clay used in pottery and the level of refinement of the clay can help narrow down the possible age of an artifact, weave patterns in material and the type of wood used on a tool all give good clues as to where and when the object was produced.

With the more modern technology and scanning methods used today dating using these methods is even more accurate… and then these qualities are matched with other artifacts that have already been accurately dated, so it is very possible to date artifacts found on the ground.

And I know all of this without reading the book… I am sure that when I do, I will have even a better understanding as to just how accurate their methods are.

You seem to believe that they are simply walking around; picking up ceramic shards and making grandiose claims…if that were true than their argument would not be swaying their critics… but they are. Furthermore your position is even more flawed because of your ignorance of their methodology and the forensics of modern archeology.

You really should learn a little about what you are talking about before you start condemning a professional’s findings… I do believe he knows more about the subject than you do, especially considering the fact that you will not even read his work.

Later

[Robert Tulip]

Here is what Finkelstein has to say about the use of broad surface surveys in the archaeology of Israel:

p106 "Israeli archaeologists took to the field with a new method of investigation: their goal was to explore, map and analyze the ancient landscape of the hill country - rather than only dig. Beginning in the 1940s, archaeologists had recognised the importance of regional studies that examined settlement patterns over time. Excavations at single sites produced highly localised pictures of the material culture of ancient populations - uncovering the sequence of styles ... But regional surveys, in which the ancient sites of a large area are dated and mapped by the characteristic pottery sherds collected on the surface, exchange depth for breadth. These surveys reveal where ancient people settled and the size of their settlements ... Surveys in which sites from many different periods are mapped allow archaeologists to track changes in the demographic history of a given region over long periods of time. ... The heartland of the Israelite settlement ... has been covered by intensive surveys. ... The work in the field was slow, with a day's work covering, on average, about one square mile. ... These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel [around 1200 BC]. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages [showed] ... no sign of violent invasion... Here were the first Israelites."

Basically, the methodical survey of archaeological evidence over wide geographical areas has proved that the Bible story of Joshua invading Canaan after the Exodus is a myth, and that the Biblical story of racial origins was written in the Seventh Century BC to serve the motives of the rulers of that time.

It ain't necessarily so

[stahrwe]

This is my third attempt at replying and since RT has chimed in I will respond to him as well.

First of all, thank you to RT for posting something substantive as opposed to being a jerk. While I appreciate the material, it was not new. I read it somewhere though not directly from Finkelstein’s book. It is immediately obvious that Finkelstein has made an assumption which is based on very thin logic. By what principle can one justify exchanging breadth for depth? The problem isn’t even with determining the age, which is usually the hardest thing to determine; when objects are found on the surface, how does one know where they came from? Who put them there? When? Why? Those questions are problematic enough, but add 3000 plus years and territory which has been pillaged numerous times and you are left with thin smoke instead of science. As rational, science minded people, why would you take smoke over a written record, especially a record with links to other civilizations written records? Finally, you are exchanging the written record for smoke based on a perceived discrepancy of a few years in the record.

In my opinion, the explanation opens more questions than it answers. I would like to know how Finkelstein determined the answers to my questions.

[Interbane]

I would like to know how Finkelstein determined the answers to my questions.

Then read the book.

[stahrwe]

I would like to know how Finkelstein determined the answers to my questions.

Then read the book.

They're not in the book.

[tat tvam asi]

How would you know that he doesn't answer your questions if you admit to not having read the book in the first place?

How can you say what either is or is not in the book?