projection

Anonymous wrote:

So you're still at it? I thought you were through. Sorry to see the effect this startling information has had on you.

I makes me angry that so many people are taught this as fact, that when they see the cracks in it, they become extremely defensive and disturbed. I look forward to the day when this deception ends.

It makes me angry that people like you can read about how your favorite theorists are being debunked - and yet you pretend to ignore it all. You seem extremely defensive and disturbed. Also, for lack of arguments on your side, you resort to ad hominems, like you're doing now.

Here, just for you, another quote from the National Geographic: "'If you want to attract attention, you behave like Finkelstein,' says Eilat Mazar. Similarly unamused is Yosef Garfinkel, who says of Finkelstein's recent receipt of a four-million-dollar research grant, 'He doesn't even use science—that's the irony. It's like giving Saddam Hussein the Nobel Peace Prize.'"

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of defensiveness, from the Nat Geog article:

The proposition that a complex tenth-century B.C. society may have existed on either side of the Jordan River has thrown Finkelstein's vision of the David and Solomon era squarely on the defensive. His many rebuttal papers and his sarcastic tone reflect that defensiveness, and his arguments at times seem a bit desperate. (The notion of living in a fortress next to a copper-smelting site would not seem ludicrous to West Virginia coal miners or residents near Three Mile Island, for example.)

So you're still at it? I thought you were through. Sorry to see the effect this startling information has had on you.

I makes me angry that so many people are taught this as fact, that when they see the cracks in it, they become extremely defensive and disturbed. I look forward to the day when this deception ends.

Speaking of defensiveness, from the Nat Geog article:

The proposition that a complex tenth-century B.C. society may have existed on either side of the Jordan River has thrown Finkelstein's vision of the David and Solomon era squarely on the defensive. His many rebuttal papers and his sarcastic tone reflect that defensiveness, and his arguments at times seem a bit desperate. (The notion of living in a fortress next to a copper-smelting site would not seem ludicrous to West Virginia coal miners or residents near Three Mile Island, for example.)

Interesting National Geographic article on new archaeological findings that contradict Finklestein's theories in that 2000 New York Times piece: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text

Here's a quote: "Now it is Finkelstein’s theory that is under siege. On the heels of Mazar’s claim to have discovered King David’s palace, two other archaeologists have unveiled remarkable finds."

Who the heck knows, though? We DCUM posters can argue endlessly about the findings at different dig sites, but we lack the deep expertise to evaluate these findings or to have opinions on whether Finklestein's pottery shard dating method is valid (it has been severely criticized). Also, we all know that there are more archaeological findings waiting to be uncovered, newer and more accurate pottery shard dating processes to be developed. I like reading about these things. But at the end of the day, I'm certainly not convinced by some DCUM poster who links to 10-year-old research and claims that Finklestein has debunked all religion.

neither do I - unsupported information and ad hominem attacks don't make for good information gathering and analysis, but they do suggest who is on the defensive.

I do look forward to others reading through this and coming to their own conclusions.

13:15/13:20 again, to make a few things clear before I go (kids).

I am not a bible literalist. I recognize that much of the OT was written as metaphor and even for political reasons. That doesn't bother me, because I'm more concerned with the NT message. Even if I wasn't concerned with mainly the NT message, though, I wouldn't take one NYTimes article and attempt, like you do, to turn it into "gospel" about the OT (complete with your bizarre parsing of the Times' language).

I also know that there are good arguments against religion. By comparison to these good arguments, your amateur-hour points about 2000-year-old veils and your attempt to argue that Finkelstein has "not been refuted" (complete with bizarre twists of language!) look positively silly. However, debating these more difficult arguments requires a fairly subtle mind. I don't see much percentage in helping you identify these harder arguments, because although the subsequent debate might be interesting and enlightening to both of us with the right participants, I don't see that kind of debate happening here.

Anonymous wrote:William Dever, quoted in the NY Times piece as critical of Finkelstein, describes himself as "an agnostic, at best." Google it.

so what? his comments about the ancient israelites support Finkelstein - that important piece is not refuted. Academics frequently have disputes about fine points in their field of study.

No respected academic, including Dever and Finkestein is saying the exodus happened as described in the bible -- many people have looked and none have found it. Shocking, I know but there it is -- and that's where faith comes in -- if you're religious and you want to continue to believe, forget looking for verification - you'll just be let down. religious people don't rely on facts to believe. It's actually discouraged.

Apparently Dever and Finkelstein had it out in a series of articles in 2004. I can't manage to open any of these online, but here's how Wikipedia describes their exchange:

A review of the book by fellow archeologist William G. Dever published in the Biblical Archaeology Review and subsequently in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, resulted in heated exchanges between Dever and Finkelstein. Dever's review noted that the book had many strengths, notably archaeology's potential for re-writing the history of "Ancient Israel", but complained that it misrepresented his own views and concluded by characterizing Finkelstein as "idiosyncratic and doctrinaire"; Finkelstein's reaction was to call Dever a "jealous academic parasite," and the debate quickly degenerated from that point.[75

To sum up: your argument that Finkelstein has no challengers/refuters is ridic.

Anonymous wrote:You bet the findings are controversial -- a lot of people don't like them at all - including you. Controversial is not the same as "refuted" as I assume you know. The war in Iraq was very controversial, but not one refutes that it happened.

As for Dever -- he is actually supporting the notion that the israelites were living in Israel when they were supposed to be in Egypt (where there is not evidence for them) Do you get that? lack of evidence in Egypt, lack evidence in the desert, lots of evidence in Israel.

I'm having a hard time not rolling my eyes. "Controversial" means that other archeologists, like Dever, don't accept the work of Finkelstein and the other minimalists. That's like, um, "refuting" the work of Finkelstein and the minimalists. Even you must grasp this fundamental meaning of the word "controversial."

Or, maybe you meant to imply that "not being refuted" is the same as "being right" -- but you couldn't be that stupid, could you?

If you google, a lot of people criticize Finkelstein's work as being shoddy and self-promoting - and those are the people who are being nice about him. Again, maybe he's right - but the point is: there.is.still.controversy.among.other.highly.regarded.archeolgists.

William Dever, quoted in the NY Times piece as critical of Finkelstein, describes himself as "an agnostic, at best." Google it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:13 again with a PS. Quackery gets published every day. Did you also buy the 911 conspiracy theory books?

Finkelstein may be right on the money, or he may be looking to make a quick buck by stirring up controversy. No matter. What's relevant here is that the NY Times article you linked to points out that respected archeolgists are still in sharp disagreement. I don't think that either you or I is qualified to say who's right.

Finkelstein is an academic archeologist who has everything to lose if his findings are not based on fact. 14 years later, no one is refuting them. I went back to the articles and don't see where he was refuted. Both references to the word “refute” were not to Finkelstein, but to 19th scholars who were studying biblical origins long before Finkelstein was born

I understand you don’t like these findings, but that’s not a reason to distort them or to malign the messenger. If you can’t handle this information, I suggest you just put it out of your mind – that’s what most people do.

Seriously? You missed the part where the NY Times writer called him "controversial"? You also missed this quote from archeologist William Dever: "In response, a major critic of the minimalists, the American archaeologist William Dever, wrote that ample physical evidence pointed to early Israelites living in the region's highlands 3,200 years ago, two centuries before the time of David and Solomon."

So, it looks like the NY Times did a piece on one guy (Finkelstein) and didn't have the typespace to do a 3-volume tome on all the competing arguments - it happens. But the NY Times was certainly careful to point out that Finkelstein has his critics.

I'm not sure what your excuse is for missing these clear references in the article. I suppose if you're doing a search on the word "refute" you might have missed these things. But generally, it looks like you're too biased to even read accurately. Not sure why I continue to waste my time with you.

You bet the findings are controversial -- a lot of people don't like them at all - including you. Controversial is not the same as "refuted" as I assume you know. The war in Iraq was very controversial, but not one refutes that it happened.

As for Dever -- he is actually supporting the notion that the israelites were living in Israel when they were supposed to be in Egypt (where there is not evidence for them) Do you get that? lack of evidence in Egypt, lack evidence in the desert, lots of evidence in Israel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:13 again with a PS. Quackery gets published every day. Did you also buy the 911 conspiracy theory books?

Finkelstein may be right on the money, or he may be looking to make a quick buck by stirring up controversy. No matter. What's relevant here is that the NY Times article you linked to points out that respected archeolgists are still in sharp disagreement. I don't think that either you or I is qualified to say who's right.

Finkelstein is an academic archeologist who has everything to lose if his findings are not based on fact. 14 years later, no one is refuting them. I went back to the articles and don't see where he was refuted. Both references to the word “refute” were not to Finkelstein, but to 19th scholars who were studying biblical origins long before Finkelstein was born

I understand you don’t like these findings, but that’s not a reason to distort them or to malign the messenger. If you can’t handle this information, I suggest you just put it out of your mind – that’s what most people do.

Seriously? You missed the part where the NY Times writer called him "controversial"? You also missed this quote from archeologist William Dever: "In response, a major critic of the minimalists, the American archaeologist William Dever, wrote that ample physical evidence pointed to early Israelites living in the region's highlands 3,200 years ago, two centuries before the time of David and Solomon."

So, it looks like the NY Times did a piece on one guy (Finkelstein) and didn't have the typespace to do a 3-volume tome on all the competing arguments - it happens. But the NY Times was certainly careful to point out that Finkelstein has his critics.

I'm not sure what your excuse is for missing these clear references in the article. I suppose if you're doing a search on the word "refute" you might have missed these things. But generally, it looks like you're too biased to even read accurately. Not sure why I continue to waste my time with you.

Anonymous wrote:12:13 again with a PS. Quackery gets published every day. Did you also buy the 911 conspiracy theory books?

Finkelstein may be right on the money, or he may be looking to make a quick buck by stirring up controversy. No matter. What's relevant here is that the NY Times article you linked to points out that respected archeolgists are still in sharp disagreement. I don't think that either you or I is qualified to say who's right.

Finkelstein is an academic archeologist who has everything to lose if his findings are not based on fact. 14 years later, no one is refuting them. I went back to the articles and don't see where he was refuted. Both references to the word “refute” were not to Finkelstein, but to 19th scholars who were studying biblical origins long before Finkelstein was born

I understand you don’t like these findings, but that’s not a reason to distort them or to malign the messenger. If you can’t handle this information, I suggest you just put it out of your mind – that’s what most people do.

12:13 again with a PS. Quackery gets published every day. Did you also buy the 911 conspiracy theory books?

Finkelstein may be right on the money, or he may be looking to make a quick buck by stirring up controversy. No matter. What's relevant here is that the NY Times article you linked to points out that respected archeolgists are still in sharp disagreement. I don't think that either you or I is qualified to say who's right.