What you mean, is that some archeologists have decided to look for evidence of past events
mentioned in the OT, and haven't found any.
No. You are once again, making things up.
examples,
Q: Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
Dever: No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those
Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.
Where are Israelites from -
Q: Does archeology back up the information in the Merneptah inscription? Is there evidence of the Israelites in the central highlands of Canaan at this time?
Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.
Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.
Are the stories of conquest real?
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.
Actual size of the kingdom vs what Bible says
Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.
Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.
Yahweh had a wife
Q: One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
Dever: In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."
Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.
The Israelite prophets and reformers denounce the Mother Goddess and all the other gods and goddesses of Canaan. But I think Asherah was widely venerated in ancient Israel. If you look at Second Kings 23, which describes the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century, he talks about purging the Temple of all the cult paraphernalia of Asherah. So the so-called folk religion even penetrated the Temple in Jerusalem.
Q: Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?
Dever: In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.
Q: Are there any images of Asherah?
Dever: For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.
They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are
If the Bible and Qur'an did not exist, I would have "no evidence", maybe..
If they did exist you would still have no evidence. Because the Mormon Bible exists, are you running to read it? The Hindu scriptures exist, are you going to read what Krishna said?
No huh? Because a book with claims isn't good evidence. At all. Just because you buy into one doesn't make it any better.
Everyone knows Superman is fiction .. we even know the authors..
Yes we do. But they were getting subconscious messages from Superman to tell a story about him because one day he will reveal himself.
You think bad apologetics arguments can't be used for anything?
We know the author of the Quran as well. He also claims messages from an angel. Just as unlikely.
Superman was an example, switch it to the Mormon Bible. Revelations from an angel, didn't say the Quran was real. Has 12 witnesses. More recent, original source. All your arguments work for the Mormon Bible as well. Pretty sure both were created by people.
You keep saying that .. each religion must be examined separately, in order to determine its roots..
Oops, you are now caught in a trap. Of your own making. Yes each religion should be examined, there are people who do it for a living. Historical scholars. Who you don't trust and conspiracy theory all over them. So actually you cannot examine them. I have been telling you the roots of Yahweh and the OT theology and you have denied all scholars. The people who read the original text in the original language, read what the historians at that time were saying, what other cultures were saying and any possible other connection.
But no, you have 100% refused that line of work. And yet here you are, suddenly claiming religions must be examined.
Here is the truth. You will allow any other religion to be examined, as historians do, and shown to be likely a syncretic myth. But then when it comes to anything you believe, then the historians are conspiracy theorists and whatever other nonsense you claimed.
Hilarious. Tripped yourself right up there. Too funny. Special pleading all day.
Oh, the Quran has been examined, all of the "divine" science was actually Greek science. The theology is OT mixed with Arabic ideas, same with wisdom and a rough draft was found dating to 5 or 6 CE. It was a work in progress.
You cannot know whether G-d exists or not, by digging up pieces of land .. or by making
assumptions about people who lived 1000's of years ago.
I'm answering this twice, first I just want you to tell me why you keep saying God cannot be proven? I keep telling you that isn't the aim of any of this and you keep doing it. Please explain why?
Every time?
We don't know Zeus doesn't exist by digging up land? Why do you keep saying this?
You cannot know whether G-d exists or not, by digging up pieces of land .. or by making
assumptions about people who lived 1000's of years ago.
By digging land we can see if the scripture is accurate. It's not, Moses is a literary figure most likely.
No one makes assumptions about people from 1000 years ago. They make theories based on evidence.
When we find a. temple with 20ft footprints in the clay, leading to the chambers, wouldn't you say it's for Yahweh to walk into his inner sanctum? At that time it was believed when God was on earth he dwelled in the temple.
And when we find Ashera idols in every house and goddess imagery at the temple it's probably Ashera, Yahweh's consort, as all deities had a consort.
You say this like no one should ever do any archaeology, just take a book and assume it's completely accurate and just worship god.
If you want to do that go ahead, not everyone does that, they want to understand what the people were really like.
All of this is just your strawman against archaeology and history because you don't like what they are saying. You sound like the Dark Ages Christians who didn't trust logic, science, or critical thinking. They said God already told us everything we need so why would we need anything else.
You could say the same about the ancient Greek beliefs. If everyone had that attitude we would still be worshipping Zeus.
So now you are special pleading, it's good for other religions but not what I believe.
