It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Archeologist unearths biblical controversy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
You know it seems that the good ol Bible proves the archeologist's wrong time and again and the smart archeologist always uses the Bible as a great reference point to begin ones search for Middle East history.

It is why Bible Archeology magazone always makes me wonder with those that still do not believe in God and yet write for the magazine itself.


Archeologist unearths biblical controversy

Archeologist unearths biblical controversy


Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament -- a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.




and


They firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.

What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.

It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute.



link

[edit on 27-1-2005 by edsinger]




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.[...]
information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

What? that much of a controversy because of a200 year difference in chronology?


Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Why? The claim doesn't state that the bible is allways wrong about everything. This sounds like a 'manufactured' controversy.

It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute

Ok, now go out and find evidence for that kingdom itself.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
But by the Grace alone,..."there go I?"



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What? that much of a controversy because of a200 year difference in chronology?


Oh yes! If the Bible was off by even a week in anything it says, then it would contain false information. In the event that it can be proven the Bible has any false information (taken in proper context), the Word is no longer the Truth, and therefor, the Bible was not ultimately authored by God causing Christianity and Judiasm to be false. There are many who would love to find this lie and expose our faith as false, but they haven't yet, and they never will



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Just to point out, men inspired by God wrote the bible, God did not directly influence the bible. When something in the bible is a little inaccurate, that doesn't mean our beliefs are a sham, just means that the people who wrote it may have been misinformed or might have exaggerated or whatnot.

This is an interesting find though, thanks for relaying the info.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJ McKool
Just to point out, men inspired by God wrote the bible, God did not directly influence the bible. When something in the bible is a little inaccurate, that doesn't mean our beliefs are a sham, just means that the people who wrote it may have been misinformed or might have exaggerated or whatnot.

This is an interesting find though, thanks for relaying the info.


Well I have to wonder about this, it is "God Breathed" and therefore not wrong but that doesn't mean that it has errors, one must learn to read it in context......



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Ed nobody disregard the bible as completly lies and myths but is a mix of both, it does have historical importance. After all it is the history of the Jewish people up to the new testament.

So the cities in the bible many did existed but they were destroyed through the years and many still can be found.

Also is other ancient historical writings by other than the bible scripts that also talks about ancient sites and cities of the time what they don't talk is about the names of the jewish lineage like the bible does.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Ed nobody disregard the bible as completly lies and myths but is a mix of both, it does have historical importance. After all it is the history of the Jewish people up to the new testament.

So the cities in the bible many did existed but they were destroyed through the years and many still can be found.

Also is other ancient historical writings by other than the bible scripts that also talks about ancient sites and cities of the time what they don't talk is about the names of the jewish lineage like the bible does.



Yes but what other ancient writing actually come close to the accuracy archaeologically speaking as the Bible? none......

Like what other book tells of an event with such vivid detail of something like the crucification mentioned in Isaiah 53..........



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Yeah, it is a wonder ed. I mean, honestly, why wouldn't a science or history student go to the bible first. I mean, how else would we have known someone walked on water, or split a sea into two. Where else does someone rise from the dead....

I just can't figure it out either, why those silly scientists don't go there for there answers...

Oh yeah, I forgot, they have brains.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
OK people I am talking about real history not miracles of the bible on that I am not a believer.

So have fun on your religious self discovery I got plenty of links on the "realities of the time."



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
OK people I am talking about real history not miracles of the bible on that I am not a believer.

So have fun on your religious self discovery I got plenty of links on the "realities of the time."


I am sad to hear that Marg, miracles are what even Josephus knew Christ was credited with......I do believe that the Red Sea was parted, I do believe Christ died and ROSE again as did Lazarus and the young girl dead 1 day.....





Originally posted by Seapeople
Yeah, it is a wonder ed. I mean, honestly, why wouldn't a science or history student go to the bible first. I mean, how else would we have known someone walked on water, or split a sea into two. Where else does someone rise from the dead....

I just can't figure it out either, why those silly scientists don't go there for there answers...

Oh yeah, I forgot, they have brains.



I guess you know nothing of archeology then, how about math? Odds? things of that nature, creatiionism.....

Darwin had it wrong and that is why evolution is still only a therory....



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
please read..........
a test of time,
legend
2 tomes by david rohl that explain in detail the 200 year discrepancy, and thus corroborate the bible's veracity, confirming it via egyptian records. this is a good thing, not an attack on Christianity.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.
Really? precisely that time in the 1100 BCE years? Excellent.

Unfortunately Esau per the Bible is circa 17th to 18th century BCE.

But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to prove Jews were Egyptians.

[edit on 2/12/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to probvin Jews were Egyptians.
SomewhereinBetween


It is now quite evident that the two royal families had a long, and obvious relationship. From Abraham and Sarah, through Vizier Joseph, to Moses ( an Egyptian name).
Even the name Tutmoses has a Jewish connection, since t and d were interchangeable, and u and v were as well, tut = dvd 'David'. So the great king David may very well have been one of the Tutmoses' pharoahs. Most likely Tutmoses III. And Akhnaten has many common life events to Moses, so they could also be one and the same.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to probvin Jews were Egyptians.


How in the heck do you come up with that?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I think people should use logic when dealing with the "miracles" that the bible talks about. Is it logical that Moses parted the Red Sea? No. Is it logical that Christ was born of a virgin? No. Is it logical that Christ died and rose again? No. Is it logical that Christ fed hundreds of people with two fishes and a loaf of bread? No.

Is it logical that the people that wrote or compiled the bible put these so called "miracles" in to ooo and awe their readers? To make them think that miracles can happen to them if they become a Christian? Yes.

Believe in what you want to believe, i just don't think the bible is the complete and utter word of God.





[edit on 12-2-2005 by Kwintz]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to probvin Jews were Egyptians.


How in the heck do you come up with that?


Edsinger the Jews were under control of Egypt for many years, remember Moses.

How can you tell if it was not mixing of the two groups, plus we know that Egyptians believes were mingle together, bringing the 10 commandments and the banning of worshiping more than one God after moses took his people out of bondage.

Moses lost control of his flock and conveniently the commandments brought them together.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
But how wonderful this news anyway, the more they find the we get to probvin Jews were Egyptians.


How in the heck do you come up with that?
Easy, through a lot of research, some of which is on this forum. In short form for you, Jews were Egyptians, and the above poster is corect the Thutmoses kings are linked to Jewish characters, such as the obvious Moses. Aten was the God they revered, the one-God transition in Egyptian history. The Book of Genesis is a recounting of the Egyptian myths but changed slightly to make God become men, to re-invent all of the first human Egyptians myths, etc.

After all, they fled Egypt when Aten was tossed out on his ear as a supreme deity and the scribes of 500-300BCE could not very well call themselves egyptian or God forbid idoliters, could they?

Fascinating story really, I'll say within 50 years it will be general public knowledge.

But here Ed for you from the website of the excavation team, sorry to burst yor bubble. I give you a later paragraph first:


Several artefacts were found in association with later contexts which, although probably residual, corroborate the early Iron Age (c. 1200 –1000 BC) date of the first occupation. For example, a leaf-shaped metal arrowhead (B. 7559, L. 344) in Stratum S3, and two scarabs
from Strata 1 and 2a in Room 4 of the Area S building are especially significant. The partially broken ‘walking sphinx’ scarab (Figure 5.1) originally included the now headless body of a royal sphinx on top of a nb sign that served as an exergue, and apparently a hieroglyph that is
now lost. The closest parallels (Hall 1913; Matouk 1977) nos. 104, 342 [No. 485], 384 [No.587]) have been dated to the New Kingdom and could therefore fit with the first half of the twelfth century BC. The second scarab (Figure 5.2) belongs to a well-known abbreviated sub-group of Iron I scarabs with a chariot scene. It depicts an archer, a horse with raised tail,
a crouching horned animal, and another human figure.


If this site can be equated with the rise of the Biblical kingdom of Edom it can now be seen to: have its roots in local Iron Age societies; is considerably earlier than previous scholars assumed; (SORRY ED!) and proves that complex societies existed in Edom long before the influence of Assyrian imperialism was felt in the region from the eighth – sixth centuries BC.

The archaeology of the Iron Age (c. 1200 – 586 BC) in the southern Levant (Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and adjacent areas) has been fraught with controversy ever since its nineteenth century beginnings primarily because it is linked with issues concerning the historicity of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. Dating events and processes of change
during the “Biblical” or Iron Age periods has been particularly problematic.

In this paper, we present the recent excavation results from a major stratified Iron Age Edomite lowland site that demonstrate significant settlement and copper production activities well before the seventh and sixth centuries BC based on high precision radiocarbon dates. These dates demonstrate a much earlier Iron Age occupation in Edom dating to the twelfth to ninth centuries BC, when construction of massive fortifications and industrial scale metal
production activities took place. Due to the relatively small number of new dates published here (ten) our report does not attempt to link the new radiocarbon data with specific historical events or personages. However, given the current debate concerning radiocarbon dating and the Iron Age of the southern Levant (Holden 2003), it is clear that the new data presented here demonstrate that a complex Iron Age polity existed in the Edomite lowlands much earlier than previously assumed.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
To my way of thinking, the claim that Jews were Egyptians is not accurate. It is true that the two royal families are definitely related, and were lfor a ong time firmly linked historically by marriage. Just last year there was a statue found in the Sinai that portrayed a man in a multicoloured coat. It was said to be the largest such icon ever found in Egypt that was not of a native Egyptian. It was suggested that the character portrayed is likely Joseph, a point which I would not argue.

Some Jewish royals were as Egyptian as they were Jewish, and some Egyptian royals were just as much Jews as Egyptians.
To say that Jews are Egyptians suggests to me that Egyptians do not have there own identity. They have a remarkable, mysterious, and very influential historical role. The ancient Greeks whom we call the fathers of western civilization virtually all admit that they learned their knowledge from Egypt.
I have found that most universities don't believe them though.......lol.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Finally, people are starting to question the whole biblical myths as being Egyptian in origin.


It is obvious to those who are open minded and are not biased by their upbringing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join