Re: Understanding the History of Ancient Israel

On Jan 14, 9:41 pm, "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <kilt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:38e8470a-5c4e-4567-b962-d2805a257f27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jan 14, 6:07 pm, "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:478bb538$0$82384$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I also skimmed Ussishkin ans Mazar.

YES great stuff! Thanks Peter!! I already found a favorite quote by
Usshikin regarding Finkelstein that agrees with my take on historian vs
archaeologist:

Just as I thought. Your idea of research is to cherry-pick whatever in
the literature (primary or otherwise) seems to you to support your pre-
existing ideas, and to ignore the rest.

Well, I'll grant you that opinion. But seems to me if I'm researching
the Amarna Period I'd be interested in references relating to that.
It's not "cherry-picking" if I avolid the NB Period.

False analogy.

It is cherry-picking if you choose one set of 14C dates, and then
apply your hinky math to them to come up with a specific date.

But I'm no aware
that I avoid anything post-Abrahamic. A new research article came
up and agreed with my position, so I quoted it. I don't think it was
out of context. On the other hand, you're not really contradicting me.

IOW, you imagine that archaeology and history are like the simplest,
most useless type of scriptural investigation: proof-texting. Pitiful.

That's your opinion.

That's the observed fac, Jack.

But again, I'm not misrepresenting the evidence in
place and other people are discussing these things. You are not
academically challenging my position. Just expressing your frustration
here.
So noted. :> Where's the critical rebuttal?

I did a more precise calculation of the 14C data from Tel Rehov than
you did. You haven't addressed that critical rebuttal.

Why is that?

You have entirely failed to understand the issues involved with 14C
dating of grain from two strata of Tel Rehov, and continue instead to
stick by your idiosyncratic (and quite mistaken) numerology.

There are more than just two strata from Tel Rehov. And I
POST THE CHART ITSELF for everybody to see and interpret
for themselves.

You either don't know or don't care--or both--that any such graph
needs to be presented in its specific context in order to be
interpreted properly.

So which is it, ignorance or carelessness, that keeps you from
presenting the context. You even go to the extreme of posting a .jpg
that has some writing at the top, but can't be made out. Afraid of
what it says, or where it might lead someone with an open mind and
access to a good library, Lars?

I could hard be said to misunderstand a chart that
anybody can cross-challenge me on, but which nobody thus far does.
They do just like you and say, "You don't understand this chart" but
they never say what the chart is supposed to mean, it just doesn't
mean what I want it to. Sorry. That's not good enough. You have
the chart. Why not tell us EXACTLY what you think it means or what
we should be understanding from it. If I'm so incredibly wrong. It's
not that I'm saying we need to use these numbers subtract 500 years then
divided by 2! I'm just going by what the evidence is.

You do not understand how 14C works. That is crystal clear, and you
have shown no interest in learning why.

Enjoy your passion. Since it is not about science (except your misuse
of it), perhaps you would be good enough to post to groups other than
those in the sci.* hierarchy.


Further you call it "mistaken" numerology. Do you have PROOF it's
mistaken. Listen. You can develop a timeline from any single absolute
dating reference. Each has their own timeline. I merely COMPARE.

Nope. You invent. And badly and brazenly at that.


EXERCISE: Just out of the blue, Kenyon dates the Israelite overthrow
of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE. It doesn't matter if you agree with
her or not, if you thinks she's looney or a genius. That's the reference.
That reference alone, when you apply the standard timleine means the
Exodus is limited to 1390-1365 BCE. That's just an academic draw on
that dating for that reference. Period. Is it right or wrong? You can
call it
anything you want. Just just saying "It's wrong!" without your counter
evidence means nothing. If my chronology is wrong, then what is the
RIGHT chronology? If you're so smart and know the exact date for the
Exodus then why not share that piece of advanced understanding with the
rest of us? You knock my dates but provide none of your own. So
I have no choice but to presume you're just bluffing.

I don't have another option--because I don't care about the
chronologies involved.

But I do care about misrepresentation of scientific data for any
reason, especially for the purpose of making a partisan interpretation
of some scripture. That's what you are doing, and it pisses me off.

Indeed, Peter, thanks again for these fine references!

Which you do not seem capable of evaluating except through the queerly
polarized lenses of your idee fixee.

I'm sorry. WHAT? Usshikin thinks that archaeologists need professional
help, that is, from those specializing in Biblical chronology, and that
archaeologists
need to focus on the evidence at hand and perhaps not let the Bible or other
history
unduly influence or prejudice their findings. I simply agree with that
position, and
I quoted him. All of a sudden I'm "knit picking"? As if this is an
exceptional or
unwarranted opinion that Ussishkin just slipped and said by mistake?

I don't think so. You talk against me but offer no critical rebuttal.

I did. You ignored it.

Anybody
can say they don't believe in angels. It doesn't mean the word isn't in the
dictionary.

Huh?

.

Loading