Proff Stories In The Bible Are Wrong

[outhouse]

I think you aren't understanding the naturalist narrative. Let me try to help you out. Any person or scientist that holds a pre-adherence to naturalistic causes of all past events are credible, any others are non-credible.

This is nothing but ignorance talking.


If you would like to contribute that fine, but at least know what your taling about.

 

[outhouse]

they are credible sources in your view, but not in mine.


:no:

You have not supplied any sources.

Mine are all historians/scholars whom of which many are theist.

Pegg what your trying to debate, is not even open for debate.

No one with credibility suggest Israelites existed prior to 1200 BC, because they just were not there.

REPEAT after me, The highlands of Israel were not inhabited with any numbers of people prior to 1200 BC. PERIOD. That is factual.

 

[SkylarHunter]

According to the Fox News link "To find the first camel, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating to analyze the oldest known camel bones in the Arabian Peninsula".
They analyzed what they found, good for them, but what guarantees do they have that in the future someone else is not going to find older bones?

 

[nazz]

I think you aren't understanding the naturalist narrative. Let me try to help you out. Any person or scientist that holds a pre-adherence to naturalistic causes of all past events are credible, any others are non-credible.

Hardly. Rather what is credible is when a person can produce evidence to support their historical assertion. Simply claiming a book contains inerrant historical fact is not enough. Especially when said book contradicts itself all over the place, has little to no external evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence exists which contradicts it.

 

[outhouse]

According to the Fox News link "To find the first camel, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef used radiocarbon dating to analyze the oldest known camel bones in the Arabian Peninsula".
They analyzed what they found, good for them, but what guarantees do they have that in the future someone else is not going to find older bones?

But you ignore that no older Camel bones have een found WHERE they should be if the biblical accounts matched historical reality.


We already know the biblical history is no where near correct, Israelites did nor exist prior to 1200 BC and that is factual according to Israel finklelstein. And it remains uncontestted and unrefuted.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But you ignore that no older Camel bones have een found WHERE they should be if the biblical accounts matched historical reality.


We already know the biblical history is no where near correct, Israelites did nor exist prior to 1200 BC and that is factual according to Israel finklelstein. And it remains uncontestted and unrefuted.

That's the date based on Finklestein, but I would hold off on declaring it an unshakable fact. Archeology like any other science marches on. So yes the evidence or lack of evidence points towards the date you mentioned but it's certainly not set in stone.

 

[outhouse]

That's the date based on Finklestein, but I would hold off on declaring it an unshakable fact. Archeology like any other science marches on. So yes the evidence or lack of evidence points towards the date you mentioned but it's certainly not set in stone.

Sorry that date is set in stone already.

Its not going anywhere. Israelites factually did not settle the highlands of Israel until after 1200 BC.


Now if you have any, I mean any information to the contrary, please post it so we can discuss it. But my friend, it does not exist.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry that date is set in stone already.

Its not going anywhere. Israelites factually did not settle the highlands of Israel until after 1200 BC.


Now if you have any, I mean any information to the contrary, please post it so we can discuss it. But my friend, it does not exist.

I've read the bible on earth and he makes strong claims but he is working off the absence of evidence.

I say it's not set in stone simply because dates move as more excavations are done.

 

[outhouse]

I've read the bible on earth and he makes strong claims but he is working off the absence of evidence.

I say it's not set in stone simply because dates move as more excavations are done.

Thing is even Faust who is biased even places that date, as does Dever.

There is no one too date even arguing anything earlier.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thing is even Faust who is biased even places that date, as does Dever.

There is no one too date even arguing anything earlier.

Which is fine, but this science acknowledgement that new evidence can spring up is necessary in my view anyways. That allows for changes and growth without being locked into a position. We've seen some of the most brilliant minds proven wrong by possibilities they could not accept. I agree the evidence seems overwhelmingly to support that claim and based on that evidence it is face but I think it's good to acknowledge that new evidences May show up. I wouldn't argue science dogmatically because the other side is dogmatic I guess is what I'm saying.

 

[outhouse]

Which is fine, but this science acknowledgement that new evidence can spring up is necessary in my view anyways. That allows for changes and growth without being locked into a position. We've seen some of the most brilliant minds proven wrong by possibilities they could not accept. I agree the evidence seems overwhelmingly to support that claim and based on that evidence it is face but I think it's good to acknowledge that new evidences May show up. I wouldn't argue science dogmatically because the other side is dogmatic I guess is what I'm saying.

But the highlands of Israel have no remains what so ever before 1200 BC. There is nothing to find.

Even the most harshest critique of Finkelstein does not argue that date..

Really archeological facts have been compiled to come up with this date.


Its not rocket science, and there is no mystery here. 2+2 = 4 and it will always be 4.


Israels Canaanite herritage is not up for dispute or debate. Israelites factually used ONLY Canaanite deities and their alphabet. Shortly before the highlands of Israel slowly filled, the Canaanite culture collapsed. Imagine that!

 

[nazz]

That's the date based on Finklestein, but I would hold off on declaring it an unshakable fact. Archeology like any other science marches on. So yes the evidence or lack of evidence points towards the date you mentioned but it's certainly not set in stone.

Yes, good point. Good evidence could overturn the current view. That is how science works.

Archaeologists are not out to "disprove the Bible". They are just trying to uncover the truth of what really happened. In fact early archaeology in the Near East focused on exploring whether evidence supported the Biblical accounts. It's not the fault of archaeologists that it doesn't.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, good point. Good evidence could overturn the current view. That is how science works.

.

What evidence could be found that would change the FACT that Israelites used only Canaanite deities and alphabet?

What evidence cold be found that would show Israelites existed earlier, in a place that has been completely investigated by archeology that shows no signs of it?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well defining who the Israelites actually were and who would become these groups would be nice

 

[nazz]

What evidence could be found that would change the FACT that Israelites used only Canaanite deities and alphabet?

What evidence cold be found that would show Israelites existed earlier, in a place that has been completely investigated by archeology that shows no signs of it?

We use the Latin alphabet but we're not Romans. As for deities they cross ethnic boundaries as well. And it's possible the Israelites existed some place else. If scientific evidence emerges that puts the Israelites as existing prior to 1200BC are you just going to reject it? If so, then how are you any different than the people you are debating?

 

[outhouse]

We use the Latin alphabet but we're not Romans.

What a poor attempt to rationalize Israelites use of the Canaanite language.

As for deities they cross ethnic boundaries as well

What another poor attempt to rationalize Israelites use of ONLY Canaanite deities.

. And it's possible the Israelites existed some place else.

How so? at 1200 BC no one at all argues Israelites at this time were proto Israelites.

If scientific evidence emerges that puts the Israelites as existing prior to 1200BC are you just going to reject it?

Nope. I will understand it will only ADD to what we already know about the ethnogenesis of Israelites.

Just so you know the only debate or research that will be, or can be done, is to figure out what OTHER Semitic people ended up settling with the displaced Canaanites that factually formed the Israelite culture.


What you FAIL to realize is that the Israelite culture sis not even come into its own until after 1000 BC.



Your is a argument from complete ignorance on Israelites ethnogenesis.

The Canaanite culture collapsed, soon after displaced Semitic people slowly started populating the highlands of Israel. This is fact. These displaced people used Canaanite deities and the Canaanite alphabet. This is also a fact.

And its not disputed by anyone.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[

Iron Age I (1200–1000 BCE)
Archaeologist Paula McNutt says: "It is probably ... during Iron Age I [that] a population began to identify itself as 'Israelite'," differentiating itself from its neighbours via prohibitions on intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion

In the Late Bronze Age there were no more than about 25 villages in the highlands, but this increased to over 300 by the end of Iron I, while the settled population doubled from 20,000 to 40,000

 

[outhouse]

Well defining who the Israelites actually were and who would become these groups would be nice

What part of displaced Canaanites dont you understand?

These constituted the majority of what would become Israelites.

Many civilizations collapsed at the end of the bronze age, there may have been sea people, and certain amount of Egyptians and Mesopotamians, but they would have been a very small portion of the people.

Multi cultural? sure, as the Canaanites were as well.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What part of displaced Canaanites dont you understand?

These constituted the majority of what would become Israelites.

Many civilizations collapsed at the end of the bronze age, there may have been sea people, and certain amount of Egyptians and Mesopotamians, but they would have been a very small portion of the people.

Multi cultural? sure, as the Canaanites were as well.

Sigh...and this is a truth there is no evidence to the contrary of this...because there were no other groups that may not have been Canaanites?

Ok

 

[outhouse]

Sigh...and this is a truth there is no evidence to the contrary of this...because there were no other groups that may not have been Canaanites?

Ok

There were no other large other groups so to speak. Others would be a minority and very small. No matter who they were, it would not change the KNOWN Canaanite herritage in place.


Things we do know is that you had southern and northern traditions that were different. early on 1000BC era there were two major traditions within this new ethnic culture.

Both mirrored Canaanite's.


I do not discount other Semitic people, we just see no traditions that reflect anything but Canaanite's cultures.

 

[nazz]

My apologies for engaging you. I won't make that mistake again.