The Bible Unearthed

[Vishnu]

This is strange. These folks allegedly "take the book as a whole"(even though at the time Ezekiel was written, the bible was not yet "whole") when approaching this prophecy, and thus extrapolate passages from places like Leviticus over onto Ezekiel 4, which in turn would force Ezekiel 4 to contradict another passage actually in EZEKIEL, and not Leviticus or somewhere else.
"Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying- Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off.
Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD." - Ezekiel 12:26-28

So, here we have jehovah telling Zeke that people are interpreting these prophecies as concerning some times in the distant future, and jehovah responding with an emphatic 'Nope'.
Very applicable to what is being done here with Ezekiel 4.

Now, I suppose one could argue that this passage is in a different context than the prophecy in chapter 4, but then that shoots them in the foot regarding the Leviticus extrapolation, since Leviticus is EVEN FURTHER removed from the context of Ezekiel 4, hell, that's from any entirely different book, by a different author, written at a different time. At least chapter 12 is in the same book, by the same author, and only few paltry chapters later.

So which is it? Do we adhere to the boundaries of context? Or is it permissible to extrapolate cherry picked passages scattered throughout the Old Testament books? And if this is permissible, how do we determine which passages to cherry pick and which to discriminate against? What is the methodology for such?

I suppose one might also argue that there would be no discrepancy between chapter 4 & chapter 12 after mixing Leviticus passages into chapter 4, since there's that whole bit about time being different for jehovah, and a day to him being like a thousand years, hence why 2,000 years later, Jesus is still coming soon.
But such an ad hoc would entirely destroy to point of those verses in chapter 12. Interpreting time that way would result in NO time EVER being "many days to come" & "far off", since the whole damn creation is only around 6,000 years old, which to jehovah would only be 6 days by this ad hoc. The point coming across in 12:26-28 is obviously not "no, you guys interpret time differently than I do", but rather "no, I'm serious, shit's gonna hit the fan REAL soon and it's going to effect YOU, so you better start taking this seriously".

Well, this thread has suddenly become interesting to me once again.

[stahrwe]

These guys are so careless with claiming the bible as absolutely true that I suppose claims of 100% certainly just go along with the territory. It isn't certain at all.

And then suddenly the Christ Myth also opens up to what it really is. They take these uncertain bits of information - Josephus, the Gospels, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc. - and claim that they prove the absolute 'certainty' of the existence of an historical Jesus as described in the Gospel stories. Once again, they claim 100% certainty when no such claim can be remotely substantiated, especially not as concerns the subject of history in general. History as a whole is full of uncertainty.

And so yes, right away when someone makes a 100% certainty claim it's a complete red flag. Everything they claim as absolute is up for critical examination immediately. And then of course the fight is on for the apologist to try and defend their false assertions grounded in 100% certainty.

I wonder how many people in the world - Christian or otherwise - browse these conversations we have here at BT on a daily a weekly basis? Christians post all the time on the book discussion forums are here, but where are they in the religion and philosophy forums? They can see these conversations at the top right of the screen running in a loop at all times. They're out there up front for everyone to see. Are the other Christians around here not confident enough to jump in and support Stahrwe? Are they too ashamed to admit that they believe similar to Stahrwe? He's left hanging most of the time. In anycase, Stahrwe's such a mental wipping post at BT that it should prompt people to think and to question these ridiculous claims that he's continually wiped for making. We all generally wipe the floor with him over and over again and everyone reading along has it all right there in plain view. Atheism and freethought is the winner time and time again...

Here come the Atheist Urban Legends as for the Christians at BT, you guys have successfully made them unwelcome and despite the fact that BT is not branded as an atheirst forum they have moved on so, I will represent.

[tat tvam asi]

No Stahrwe, I think that you're just the only one stubborn enough and stupid enough to press on even though you're proven WRONG every day by a variety of different people acting as if nothing happened, and, as if you're the winner.

[stahrwe]

Here is what I found out about Field Walks as methodology

Field walk (transects)
Conventionally fieldwalking in grids or lines transects has formed the back bone of archaeological survey fieldwork. A single researcher or team will walk slowly through the target area looking for artifacts or other archaeological indicators, often recording aspects of the environment at the time[3]. The method works best on either ploughed ground or surfaces with little vegetation. On ploughed surfaces, as the soil is turned regularly artifacts will move to the top.[/b]

Even with optimal surface conditions the efficacy of fieldwalking varies according longterm landuse and topography. Intensive arable agriculture on hilltops will first expose and then pulverise artefacts such as pottery and even chipped stone (typically flint, chert or obsidian) flakes [4], [5]. Conversely, the plateau and upper scarp or valley side soils will move down slope, forming a deep seal over low-lying archaeological deposits, rendering them inaccessable to surface survey.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Archaeological_field_survey

[tat tvam asi]

Finklestein was "walking through park" Strawbe, come on, what do you think he was doing.

[stahrwe]

Looking for butterflies would have been more effective. Anything retrieved from a surface survey is archaeologically nearly valuless.

[tat tvam asi]

No, as a matter of fact, in Finkelsteins case it's been highly productive. He's been able to map out the inhabited area's in ancient Israel along with other methods to produce a compelling argument. To post about the difficulties which can be involved with surface surveying is basically meaningless in this case, because, against whatever odds there are, Finklestein pulled through and found the evidence and it was all easily dated to the time periods which have since been assigned to the pottery and debris.

That's like posting the difficulties associated with setting shower wall tile over the top of shower wall tile as if it proves that I didn't just accomplish setting shower wall tile over the top of existing shower wall tile. Regardless of whether or not some prefer to take on such a task, or are afraid to try it, or don't know how to do it, I do and I just did it anyways.

Finklestein just did in likewise fashion.

Surprise Strawbe!!!

[stahrwe]

No, as a matter of fact, in Finkelsteins case it's been highly productive. He's been able to map out the inhabited area's in ancient Israel along with other methods to produce a compelling argument. To post about the difficulties which can be involved with surface surveying is basically meaningless in this case, because, against whatever odds there are, Finklestein pulled through and found the evidence and it was all easily dated to the time periods which have since been assigned to the pottery and debris.

That's like posting the difficulties associated with setting shower wall tile over the top of shower wall tile as if it proves that I didn't just accomplish setting shower wall tile over the top of existing shower wall tile. Regardless of whether or not some prefer to take on such a task, or are afraid to try it, or don't know how to do it, I do and I just did it anyways.

Finklestein just did in likewise fashion.

Surprise Strawbe!!!

For a group of people who are so adament about evidence for claims of Christianity you very generous with Finkelstein. There is no way how surface material ended up where it was found or, when it got there and who left it; none of that can be conclusively stated for items picked up from the surface.

[tat tvam asi]

I guess you missed it stahrwe, Finklestein has done just that, and with support of modern achaeology at that. He found artifacts, the artifacts were dated via the scientific method, and a mapping of the extent of the population of ancient Israel was succesfully made. You can turn away and reject the facts, as you do with the evidence for the antiquity of the earth and cosmos, the evidence of the evolution of life on earth, and so on, but the facts are the facts and no amount of disbelief or unacceptence on your part has the power to change that. You may not understand the facts presented by Finklesteins work but that in no way dimishes his accomplishments. I'm sure you don't understand a lot of things, but so what? Your lack of understanding doesn't make something immediately false.

[stahrwe]

I guess you missed it stahrwe, Finklestein has done just that, and with support of modern achaeology at that. He found artifacts, the artifacts were dated via the scientific method, and a mapping of the extent of the population of ancient Israel was succesfully made. You can turn away and reject the facts, as you do with the evidence for the antiquity of the earth and cosmos, the evidence of the evolution of life on earth, and so on, but the facts are the facts and no amount of disbelief or unacceptence on your part has the power to change that. You may not understand the facts presented by Finklesteins work but that in no way dimishes his accomplishments. I'm sure you don't understand a lot of things, but so what? Your lack of understanding doesn't make something immediately false.

Sorry, but you are wrong. I am not questioning the dating of the artificats. What I am maintaining is that no one can say with certainty how 3000 year old items found on the surface of the ground came to be there. Given artifacts found under those circumstances vs a written historical record, the record must win.