i looked for a thread onthis and did not find one, so iasked the powers that be and they just said to start one anywhere so here it is.i do not know what you all know about this field and i do not want to insult anyone so i will just open up with a list of some of the good and bad guys.Good guys; k.A. Kitchen, James Hoffmeier, Bryant Wood, John McCray, R.K. Harrison, well that will do for a start though harrison is dead now.Bad guys: (a much easier list) Israel Finkelstein, Wm. Dever, Bart Ehrman, Erich Cline, Philip Davies, James Tabor and many many more.there are some border line people as well but i can't list them right now off the top of my head.if you do not know much or are unsure of someone or what they have said please ask and i will do my best to answer your questions.
biblical archaeology
- Thread starter archaeologist
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
Biblical archeology is not my strong point, although I do have some interesting ones.Many of us talk about E. Raymond Capt. (now deceased). As a matter of fact, Christine put out a link to one of his videos lately. An amateur archaeologist that caught my eye (also gone now) is a fellow by the name of Ron Wyatt. He's out of the mainline and not taken seriously, but he was in the medical field and claimed he saw the ark of the covenant hidden way behind some rocks using an old colonoscope. I don't know if he was trying to make a you-know-what out of people or not.
But his stories are at least interesting.
An amateur archaeologist that caught my eye (also gone now) is a fellow by the name of Ron Wyatt
i think just about everyone has heard about ron wyatt and that is due to the airplay(?) he gets mostly from his family and the family run museum they have.wyatt is more than discredited and though he may have some good information most of it is bad and undermines anything he accomplished. even his methods were over the line at times. but to be fair, here is an article that may explain muchof his behavior, written by someone who worked with him:sorry i have to wait 1 post before posting the link so it willbe in the next one immediately following this one.
i think just about everyone has heard about ron wyatt and that is due to the airplay(?) he gets mostly from his family and the family run museum they have.wyatt is more than discredited and though he may have some good information most of it is bad and undermines anything he accomplished. even his methods were over the line at times. but to be fair, here is an article that may explain muchof his behavior, written by someone who worked with him:sorry i have to wait 1 post before posting the link so it willbe in the next one immediately following this one.
the link is;http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html
To this day I cannot give a rational account for the extreme misguidedness that Wyatt revealed. What was happening in his head? His participation in our group worship times had left all of us in no doubt about his sincerity and his devotion to Scripture. He was a competent Bible scholar. He was a brother. Yet he had misled us terribly, and had offered no words of regret or apology or explanation. I have reviewed the whole story many times since then, and am convinced that the church administrator was right: Wyatt might be mistaken, but he himself believed that what he had originally shared was true. From medical school I remember hearing of a rare state of mind, with a long Latin name, that led its victims to concoct marvelously detailed accounts of events that were pure fabrications, yet which the story-teller himself had come to believe were absolutely true. I am inclined to believe that Wyatt was a florid example of this disorder. He was not a deliberate liar, a fraud. And some of his observations had merit. But I am convinced that some of his "discoveries" were matters which underwent transcription in his mind, and he came to believe as true certain ideas and observations that in fact were his own inventions.
Many of us talk about E. Raymond Capt. (now deceased). As a matter of fact, Christine put out a link to one of his videos lately
i have not heard of this man but then i would not hear of everyone.
To this day I cannot give a rational account for the extreme misguidedness that Wyatt revealed. What was happening in his head? His participation in our group worship times had left all of us in no doubt about his sincerity and his devotion to Scripture. He was a competent Bible scholar. He was a brother. Yet he had misled us terribly, and had offered no words of regret or apology or explanation. I have reviewed the whole story many times since then, and am convinced that the church administrator was right: Wyatt might be mistaken, but he himself believed that what he had originally shared was true. From medical school I remember hearing of a rare state of mind, with a long Latin name, that led its victims to concoct marvelously detailed accounts of events that were pure fabrications, yet which the story-teller himself had come to believe were absolutely true. I am inclined to believe that Wyatt was a florid example of this disorder. He was not a deliberate liar, a fraud. And some of his observations had merit. But I am convinced that some of his "discoveries" were matters which underwent transcription in his mind, and he came to believe as true certain ideas and observations that in fact were his own inventions.
Many of us talk about E. Raymond Capt. (now deceased). As a matter of fact, Christine put out a link to one of his videos lately
i have not heard of this man but then i would not hear of everyone.
Do you mean only israel-palestine diggers? (Or do you mean bible artefacts/relics/sites like sinai, arks, etc?) I'm more of a chronologist/historian than archaeologist http://www.freewebs.com/lifetradition (egypt paragraph)I don't think criticism of Wyatt is very sincere or objective one must investigate each "discovery" evidence themselves, are these chariot parts real or fake?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alt-origins/...662254/pic/listIs the Garden Tomb wrong?Maybe easier to arrange by topic? egsinai: bob cornuke, anati, etcred sea: ron wyatt/ross paterson, magnussonjericho: kenyon, garstang,ark of noah: dave fasold, cornuke,"joseph": dave rohl,golgotha, tomb JC: wyatt (garden tomb),ark cov: wyatt (golgotha), hancock/cornuke (ethiopia), indiana jones
etc"ur of chaldees": wooleyflood: whitcomb & morrisk Sol's mines: albright,paul's anchor: cornuke,authors: dave down, alan millard, (werner keller)
Do you mean only israel-palestine diggers? (Or do you mean bible artefacts/relics/sites like sinai, arks, etc?) I'm more of a chronologist/historian than archaeologist
either , i am not picky here.
I don't think criticism of Wyatt is very sincere or objective one must investigate each "discovery" evidence themselves, are these chariot parts real or fake?
i couldn't acces either link, as one is blocked in this country for some reason and the other requires membership i do not have. (beyond the yahoo i.d.)actually i find the criticism to be very fair and warranted. wyatt was off in all of his 'discoveries and claims. he represented those people eric cline wishes to ban from doing archaeology, though i do not agree with cline, wyatt was a big pain, trouble maker and clouded the truth.
Is the Garden Tomb wrong
how can it be right? we do not know the exact location of the tomb and last count there were 2 such places vying for the honor of being the authentic burial places of Jesus.your list:jericho--add in Bryant Wood, who supports Garstang's conclusions and has proven kenyon to be wrong.ur-- wooley did some great work, too bad he was forced to recant his flood discovery. i believe he was rightk. s. mines-- there has been a new discovery recently concerning this and you may want to update your list. flood-- i am not a fan of either of those two but add in hapgood, rehwinkel, pittman and ryan and a recent discovery off the coast of india of an ancient town buried in water. the evidence for the global flood is there, one just needs to know where to look.noah's ark-- we do not need it nor has it been found. ask yourself this, even if such a structure was found, would atheists and other unbelievers accept it as the ark or would they find something with which to dismiss it? my experience has been the latter. part of the equation for everyone is God's criteria for faith. we will get enough evidence to strengthen our faith but not so much that it destroys that criteria. 'without faith one cannot please God.' so it really doesn't matter if we find the ark or not as one needs to weigh the priorities of the evidence we do need and how it wil be received.look at the menertha stele and how it and David are still dismissed by those who do not accept the Bible as being true.the thing about some of those people you mention is that i can only give them credit for looking and digging up more clues or artifacts while their conclusions are out n left field. hancock is a good example of this. i have only read one of his books but that was enough for me.i have read down's 'unwrapping the pharaohs' and he and ashton make a compelling argument for revisal of the egyptian chronologies, though i doubt we will see it happen. you can add in rohl there as well.one thing you should keep in mind is that many non-christian arch. and scholars base their conclusions on what they do not find, which is easy given the fact that any one dig has uncovered less than 5% of the total area (with maybe the odd exception). a good book to read on that topic is K.A. Kitchen's 'The Bible In Its World'. the first 12-20 pages tells the christian of the limited amount of information being used by artch. to determine what took place in the past.
either , i am not picky here.
I don't think criticism of Wyatt is very sincere or objective one must investigate each "discovery" evidence themselves, are these chariot parts real or fake?
i couldn't acces either link, as one is blocked in this country for some reason and the other requires membership i do not have. (beyond the yahoo i.d.)actually i find the criticism to be very fair and warranted. wyatt was off in all of his 'discoveries and claims. he represented those people eric cline wishes to ban from doing archaeology, though i do not agree with cline, wyatt was a big pain, trouble maker and clouded the truth.
Is the Garden Tomb wrong
how can it be right? we do not know the exact location of the tomb and last count there were 2 such places vying for the honor of being the authentic burial places of Jesus.your list:jericho--add in Bryant Wood, who supports Garstang's conclusions and has proven kenyon to be wrong.ur-- wooley did some great work, too bad he was forced to recant his flood discovery. i believe he was rightk. s. mines-- there has been a new discovery recently concerning this and you may want to update your list. flood-- i am not a fan of either of those two but add in hapgood, rehwinkel, pittman and ryan and a recent discovery off the coast of india of an ancient town buried in water. the evidence for the global flood is there, one just needs to know where to look.noah's ark-- we do not need it nor has it been found. ask yourself this, even if such a structure was found, would atheists and other unbelievers accept it as the ark or would they find something with which to dismiss it? my experience has been the latter. part of the equation for everyone is God's criteria for faith. we will get enough evidence to strengthen our faith but not so much that it destroys that criteria. 'without faith one cannot please God.' so it really doesn't matter if we find the ark or not as one needs to weigh the priorities of the evidence we do need and how it wil be received.look at the menertha stele and how it and David are still dismissed by those who do not accept the Bible as being true.the thing about some of those people you mention is that i can only give them credit for looking and digging up more clues or artifacts while their conclusions are out n left field. hancock is a good example of this. i have only read one of his books but that was enough for me.i have read down's 'unwrapping the pharaohs' and he and ashton make a compelling argument for revisal of the egyptian chronologies, though i doubt we will see it happen. you can add in rohl there as well.one thing you should keep in mind is that many non-christian arch. and scholars base their conclusions on what they do not find, which is easy given the fact that any one dig has uncovered less than 5% of the total area (with maybe the odd exception). a good book to read on that topic is K.A. Kitchen's 'The Bible In Its World'. the first 12-20 pages tells the christian of the limited amount of information being used by artch. to determine what took place in the past.
I have seen several investigators claim to have found chariot parts and weapons about 200 ft below the Red Sea as well as stones on bothsides depicting the exodus. Usually this stuff is not presented to the mainstream. I have seen the pictures of these things and I tend to agree with the findings and I hope they are true. I do know that many have tried to hide archeological findings for fear something Biblical will be proven true.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(archaeologist;64678)
i have not heard of this man but then i would not hear of everyone.
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him. I compare him to a boy who's all fired up ready to find treasure. He really believes he found treasure, but his parents know it's not real treasure. But it is to the boy. Ron Wyatt could fire up the imagination to the point where he believed stuff himself. However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline. In every field, one has to somewhat conform to the establishment to be praised, but in reality, that stifles independent thinking.I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David.That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David.In addition, Capt is big on related biblical topics such as Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid.
i have not heard of this man but then i would not hear of everyone.
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him. I compare him to a boy who's all fired up ready to find treasure. He really believes he found treasure, but his parents know it's not real treasure. But it is to the boy. Ron Wyatt could fire up the imagination to the point where he believed stuff himself. However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline. In every field, one has to somewhat conform to the establishment to be praised, but in reality, that stifles independent thinking.I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David.That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David.In addition, Capt is big on related biblical topics such as Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid.
I have seen several investigators claim to have found chariot parts and weapons about 200 ft below the Red Sea as well as stones on bothsides depicting the exodus. Usually this stuff is not presented to the mainstream. I have seen the pictures of these things and I tend to agree with the findings and I hope they are true. I do know that many have tried to hide archeological findings for fear something Biblical will be proven true
first, it would help if you posted links to some websites so i know exactly what you are referring to as i ould search and fnd the wrong article. it is just easier and bettersecond, what you say is basically true, there is a fear in ther middle east of proving the bible true and validating the israeli claims, the arab world needs to have the Bible in doubt to have the rest of the countries on their side of the argument.i would need to know how you define 'mainstream' as basically all archaeologists know what has been discovered, even by what is called the wing nut fringe. i do not know if findings 'are hidden' but one has to be careful of the politics of the area.
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him.
i use that article as it is the best one out there about wyatt and allows people to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of just mocking him.
However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline.
again i would have to ask what your definition of 'mainline' is as it is probably different than mine. there is what some of us call 'the club' whose ideas are very fixed and it is hard to get them on board for anything outside of their 'approved' ideas.wooly and the discoverer of troy ran into this mentality a lot. basicallyyou can say there are those in 'the club' and those outside. with more in a group called 'the wing nut' fringe {where hancock, wyatt, von danikon and others reside).for biblical archaeology you have to be careful of being too fanatical, where every carved rock or artifact is considered holy. it is best to gather the evidence first and prove your point before proclaiming your conclusions. sometimes eliat mazar jumps ahead of herself and gets flack for it (the jezebal inscription)
I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David
this is a good example of when to say 'i don't know' because we don't know and to avoid being embarrasssed or lose credibility it is best to take that position until one has proof.
That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David
i would be interested in reading aout his work if you can suggest some credible titles. as for the lost tribes, it is said that they basically were assimilatedinto other cultures and lost their identity over the years through inter-marriage and such. much better than the mormon claim of the western indians being the 10 tribes of israel.
first, it would help if you posted links to some websites so i know exactly what you are referring to as i ould search and fnd the wrong article. it is just easier and bettersecond, what you say is basically true, there is a fear in ther middle east of proving the bible true and validating the israeli claims, the arab world needs to have the Bible in doubt to have the rest of the countries on their side of the argument.i would need to know how you define 'mainstream' as basically all archaeologists know what has been discovered, even by what is called the wing nut fringe. i do not know if findings 'are hidden' but one has to be careful of the politics of the area.
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him.
i use that article as it is the best one out there about wyatt and allows people to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of just mocking him.
However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline.
again i would have to ask what your definition of 'mainline' is as it is probably different than mine. there is what some of us call 'the club' whose ideas are very fixed and it is hard to get them on board for anything outside of their 'approved' ideas.wooly and the discoverer of troy ran into this mentality a lot. basicallyyou can say there are those in 'the club' and those outside. with more in a group called 'the wing nut' fringe {where hancock, wyatt, von danikon and others reside).for biblical archaeology you have to be careful of being too fanatical, where every carved rock or artifact is considered holy. it is best to gather the evidence first and prove your point before proclaiming your conclusions. sometimes eliat mazar jumps ahead of herself and gets flack for it (the jezebal inscription)
I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David
this is a good example of when to say 'i don't know' because we don't know and to avoid being embarrasssed or lose credibility it is best to take that position until one has proof.
That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David
i would be interested in reading aout his work if you can suggest some credible titles. as for the lost tribes, it is said that they basically were assimilatedinto other cultures and lost their identity over the years through inter-marriage and such. much better than the mormon claim of the western indians being the 10 tribes of israel.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
again i would have to ask what your definition of 'mainline' is as it is probably different than mine.
Academic consensus. People confuse that with truth. I'm not much up on the consensus of archeology, but I can give a medical example. Most medical sources say that high cholesterol is bad for you. That's what I call mainline. However, this may not be true as other minority opinions are coming out that say just the opposite. I have the belief the minority is right, and therefore that's the truth, but is not mainline. Many times in history the mainliners eventually, albeit reluctantly changed their views by someone in the minority.Your Troy example (Schliemann) is a good case in point.
I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David
this is a good example of when to say 'i don't know' because we don't know and to avoid being embarrasssed or lose credibility it is best to take that position until one has proof.I agree when there are several possibilities. I don't dogmatically say this as no one person has really found the ark, but sometimes stories in the bible tells us (if the prophecies are interpreted) that give us very strong hints at this. In this case, such a claim would make more sense and more probable than say, it's in the Himalayas. The science and the bible must work to agree with each other.
i would be interested in reading aout his work if you can suggest some credible titles. as for the lost tribes, it is said that they basically were assimilatedinto other cultures and lost their identity over the years through inter-marriage and such. much better than the mormon claim of the western indians being the 10 tribes of israel.
One of Capts works tracing the lost tribes can be found in this book. I have it and it is very good:Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian TabletsAs for what is said about the lost tribes being assimilated, this I disagree with otherwise the bible would be false. However, that is a typical "mainline" belief. Mainliners do not have faith and therefore do not feel obligated to uphold the bible. However, God's Word says that they are preserved as peoples until the time of the end and are indeed all included in end time prophecy. Therefore, such claims about being assimilated must be rejected and evidence found supporting the biblical view. I know that's taking a preconceived notion, but that's actually my intent. If I was agnostic and trying to disprove the bible, then I'd look for evidence to the contrary. I am not convinced that anyone is truly unbiased in this regard.
Academic consensus. People confuse that with truth. I'm not much up on the consensus of archeology, but I can give a medical example. Most medical sources say that high cholesterol is bad for you. That's what I call mainline. However, this may not be true as other minority opinions are coming out that say just the opposite. I have the belief the minority is right, and therefore that's the truth, but is not mainline. Many times in history the mainliners eventually, albeit reluctantly changed their views by someone in the minority.Your Troy example (Schliemann) is a good case in point.
I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David
this is a good example of when to say 'i don't know' because we don't know and to avoid being embarrasssed or lose credibility it is best to take that position until one has proof.I agree when there are several possibilities. I don't dogmatically say this as no one person has really found the ark, but sometimes stories in the bible tells us (if the prophecies are interpreted) that give us very strong hints at this. In this case, such a claim would make more sense and more probable than say, it's in the Himalayas. The science and the bible must work to agree with each other.
i would be interested in reading aout his work if you can suggest some credible titles. as for the lost tribes, it is said that they basically were assimilatedinto other cultures and lost their identity over the years through inter-marriage and such. much better than the mormon claim of the western indians being the 10 tribes of israel.
One of Capts works tracing the lost tribes can be found in this book. I have it and it is very good:Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian TabletsAs for what is said about the lost tribes being assimilated, this I disagree with otherwise the bible would be false. However, that is a typical "mainline" belief. Mainliners do not have faith and therefore do not feel obligated to uphold the bible. However, God's Word says that they are preserved as peoples until the time of the end and are indeed all included in end time prophecy. Therefore, such claims about being assimilated must be rejected and evidence found supporting the biblical view. I know that's taking a preconceived notion, but that's actually my intent. If I was agnostic and trying to disprove the bible, then I'd look for evidence to the contrary. I am not convinced that anyone is truly unbiased in this regard.
I'm familiar with some of the aforementioned names, but then again I'm not really interested in names unless I am looking for a book. Like Tim, I'm very interested in the work of E. Raymond Capt although I think he had some troubles on the doctrinal side of things, at least later in life. It's good to keep the two seperate when dealing with the man (or woman), IMHO, because a good discovery is a good discovery when you understand what's going on.As for the "cliques" or good 'ole boy systems that arise - this seems to be the common scheme amongst the various sciences. For example Frederick Haberman wrote an excellent book about the history of Christianity and specifically the Adamic line. Naturally, this was branded as racism and anthropologists (as I believe he was) basically kicked him out when before he had been such a great scholar.I'd be interested to have you share some more of your knowledge with us, as this is a topic I'd personally like to explore more.
Naturally, this was branded as racism and anthropologists (as I believe he was) basically kicked him out when before he had been such a great scholar.
this seems to happen a lot. themovie expelled started off with a story i had known about for about 2 years previous where a publisher was ostracized and banished by the smithsonian for an article on intelligent designmy undergrad anthropology teacher ran into a similar problem when he was preparing pursue masters and doctors degrees in that field. when he found out to achieve his doctorate he had to believe in evolution, he stopped and became a misionary. (that was over 30 years ago)
I'd be interested to have you share some more of your knowledge with us, as this is a topic I'd personally like to explore more.
feel free to ask questions then as i do not like to guess at what people want to hear and i live in asia so you would have to be patient for my responses.
this seems to happen a lot. themovie expelled started off with a story i had known about for about 2 years previous where a publisher was ostracized and banished by the smithsonian for an article on intelligent designmy undergrad anthropology teacher ran into a similar problem when he was preparing pursue masters and doctors degrees in that field. when he found out to achieve his doctorate he had to believe in evolution, he stopped and became a misionary. (that was over 30 years ago)
I'd be interested to have you share some more of your knowledge with us, as this is a topic I'd personally like to explore more.
feel free to ask questions then as i do not like to guess at what people want to hear and i live in asia so you would have to be patient for my responses.
Academic consensus. People confuse that with truth.
i can accept that definition but with a caveat or two.
As for what is said about the lost tribes being assimilated, this I disagree with otherwise the bible would be false.
i can't say at this time as i haven't done enough study in this area.
I'd be interested to have you share some more of your knowledge with us, as this is a topic I'd personally like to explore more
you do realize that most scholars now consider that objectivity and unbiased opinions is an idea of the past. Orr, Dever and a few others have come to a consensus that no one is objective and that such objectives is the ideal.i know of no one who is objective and even finkelstein and his partner silbermann publically state their personal agenda (which is not even close to supporting the Bible).
i can accept that definition but with a caveat or two.
As for what is said about the lost tribes being assimilated, this I disagree with otherwise the bible would be false.
i can't say at this time as i haven't done enough study in this area.
I'd be interested to have you share some more of your knowledge with us, as this is a topic I'd personally like to explore more
you do realize that most scholars now consider that objectivity and unbiased opinions is an idea of the past. Orr, Dever and a few others have come to a consensus that no one is objective and that such objectives is the ideal.i know of no one who is objective and even finkelstein and his partner silbermann publically state their personal agenda (which is not even close to supporting the Bible).
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 13
- 0
- 66
(Swamp Fox;64703)
I'm familiar with some of the aforementioned names, but then again I'm not really interested in names unless I am looking for a book. Like Tim, I'm very interested in the work of E. Raymond Capt although I think he had some troubles on the doctrinal side of things, at least later in life. It's good to keep the two seperate when dealing with the man (or woman), IMHO, because a good discovery is a good discovery when you understand what's going on.
Not to get off the subject, but you noticed that too about Capt? I bought one book of his that ended in the trashcan (non-archaeological) that dealt with doctrine. He basically taught universal salvation which was a surprise since the symbolism in the pyramid and stars clearly denies that. I could not figure out how he could reconcile the two.He must of changed like the cartoonist Charles Schultz. In his later years Schultz went from being Christian to secular humanist, but his older cartoons clearly portray a Christian slant such as the Christmas cartoon where Linus quotes the bible.
I'm familiar with some of the aforementioned names, but then again I'm not really interested in names unless I am looking for a book. Like Tim, I'm very interested in the work of E. Raymond Capt although I think he had some troubles on the doctrinal side of things, at least later in life. It's good to keep the two seperate when dealing with the man (or woman), IMHO, because a good discovery is a good discovery when you understand what's going on.
Not to get off the subject, but you noticed that too about Capt? I bought one book of his that ended in the trashcan (non-archaeological) that dealt with doctrine. He basically taught universal salvation which was a surprise since the symbolism in the pyramid and stars clearly denies that. I could not figure out how he could reconcile the two.He must of changed like the cartoonist Charles Schultz. In his later years Schultz went from being Christian to secular humanist, but his older cartoons clearly portray a Christian slant such as the Christmas cartoon where Linus quotes the bible.
couldn't say as i have never read his work. even when i looked up his biography, the information was skimpy
(archaeologist;64686)
i couldn't acces either link, as one is blocked in this country for some reason and the other requires membership i do not have. (beyond the yahoo i.d.)
I see you are in Asia, maybe they blocked it because of the China paragraph which shows biblical &/or "caucasian" origins of chinese. I can PM the egypt article to you if you want but I not want to paste it here.The yahoo group archives are free for all to view without having to become member.(archaeologist;64686)
how can it be right? we do not know the exact location of the tomb and last count there were 2 such places vying for the honor of being the authentic burial places of Jesus.
there are at least 3 tombs I know of: the sepulchre, the garden tomb and the talpiot "lost tomb of jesus". Of the 3 the most likely one is the garden tomb.(archaeologist;64686)
ur-- wooley did some great work, too bad he was forced to recant his flood discovery. i believe he was right
Wooley was wrong on both counts: Ur city was not Abe's "Ur of Chaldees", and the Ur flood was not the Great Flood which latter was global see article at http://headnheart.blogspot.com .(archaeologist;64686)
k. s. mines-- there has been a new discovery recently concerning this and you may want to update your list.
my own serabit-el-khadem theory is on my freewebsite you can't access.(archaeologist;64686)
flood-- i am not a fan of either of those two but add in hapgood, rehwinkel, pittman and ryan and a recent discovery off the coast of india of an ancient town buried in water. the evidence for the global flood is there, one just needs to know where to look.
the flood was global not rising sea levels. the ice age was post flood see genesisveracity (jim nienhuis) website.hapgood is about crust displacement which may/not be connected with flood. I involve his continental shift parts in my atlantis theory ( at http://headnheart.blogspot.com )(archaeologist;64686)
noah's ark-- we do not need it nor has it been found. ask yourself this, even if such a structure was found, would atheists and other unbelievers accept it as the ark or would they find something with which to dismiss it? my experience has been the latter.
what is your disproof of any/each/all of the 3 ark sites ( ararat, durupinar, suleiman ) ? I didn't say we need it, nor do I say we don't want it.(archaeologist;64686)
part of the equation for everyone is God's criteria for faith. we will get enough evidence to strengthen our faith but not so much that it destroys that criteria. 'without faith one cannot please God.' so it really doesn't matter if we find the ark or not as one needs to weigh the priorities of the evidence we do need and how it wil be received.
you are right that people will believe what they want and everything can be explained away. but I don't agree with blind faith. what is faith? faith in what?Jesus gave plnty of evidences. nature declares creator, "no excuse". faith is not believing without evidence. even the demons believe and tremble. always be ready to give reason for your faith". study to show self approved. search scriptures to see if so. see the recent "unforgivable sin" topic on this forum. God is not so mean and cruel to give us no evidence. part of life is to explore and discover treasures ("keep garden" of adam). only need a mustard seed. doubting Thomas was given chance. etc.(archaeologist;64686)
the thing about some of those people you mention is that i can only give them credit for looking and digging up more clues or artifacts while their conclusions are out n left field. hancock is a good example of this. i have only read one of his books but that was enough for me.
the list was not meant to imply my agreemnent with any of them, i was just trying to be helpful/interesting as I would have liked people to so respond to my own threads/posts.If it is only a list/discussion of verified new revolutionary true discoveries you want then it is more controversial:joshua's jericho definately found (garstang),noah's ark maybe found,joseph in egypt I believe I found but yet to be verified (rohl's jose wrong),david generally agreed to be proven now,etc.(archaeologist;64686)
i have read down's 'unwrapping the pharaohs' and he and ashton make a compelling argument for revisal of the egyptian chronologies, though i doubt we will see it happen. you can add in rohl there as well.
plenty of people have proven that egyptian-biblical chronology needed to be revised: dave rohl, i velikovsky, pete james, i newton, h hoeh, don courville, sid bristowe, la waddell, dav down. Down is not quite right about a few things. here is my own current theory:.........................G-d.........................Eden.........................10/1656.........................Flood.........................Kenan'0 dyn'..................Babel/Reu/Serug/Nahor'0'/1st/(2nd)Dyn.........Terah/Abe/Chedorlaomer2nd......................Isaac(2nd)/3rd................Jacob3rd/Surid/4th............Jose7th......................70Khety....................KohathMoeris/Sesostris.........Moses13th/Aseth...............Josh?-Barak?Hyksos...................JudgesTuthmosis3/[Nilus].......JephthahAmarna...................KDave18th/19th................Solomon/AnoRamses2..................Ano/ShishakMerneptah/Setnakht?......Menelik/Zerah22nd/[1stOlympi]/25th....So/Hezekiah/Tirhakah26thDyn..................Necho/Hophra27th/31st................Persia.(archaeologist;64686)
one thing you should keep in mind is that many non-christian arch. and scholars base their conclusions on what they do not find, which is easy given the fact that any one dig has uncovered less than 5% of the total area (with maybe the odd exception). a good book to read on that topic is K.A. Kitchen's 'The Bible In Its World'. the first 12-20 pages tells the christian of the limited amount of information being used by artch. to determine what took place in the past.
the world can't handle the "little" [alot] that it already has, dont need more (except looking for specific verifications eg atlantis city). I don't like mainstream "cheating" by finding before working out, (incld satelite archaeology etc). As ceram says its the diletantes who often make the revolutionary discoveries. Its getting very depressing how "scientists" discover things every week in the news while the common layman/amateurs are leftout.
i couldn't acces either link, as one is blocked in this country for some reason and the other requires membership i do not have. (beyond the yahoo i.d.)
I see you are in Asia, maybe they blocked it because of the China paragraph which shows biblical &/or "caucasian" origins of chinese. I can PM the egypt article to you if you want but I not want to paste it here.The yahoo group archives are free for all to view without having to become member.(archaeologist;64686)
how can it be right? we do not know the exact location of the tomb and last count there were 2 such places vying for the honor of being the authentic burial places of Jesus.
there are at least 3 tombs I know of: the sepulchre, the garden tomb and the talpiot "lost tomb of jesus". Of the 3 the most likely one is the garden tomb.(archaeologist;64686)
ur-- wooley did some great work, too bad he was forced to recant his flood discovery. i believe he was right
Wooley was wrong on both counts: Ur city was not Abe's "Ur of Chaldees", and the Ur flood was not the Great Flood which latter was global see article at http://headnheart.blogspot.com .(archaeologist;64686)
k. s. mines-- there has been a new discovery recently concerning this and you may want to update your list.
my own serabit-el-khadem theory is on my freewebsite you can't access.(archaeologist;64686)
flood-- i am not a fan of either of those two but add in hapgood, rehwinkel, pittman and ryan and a recent discovery off the coast of india of an ancient town buried in water. the evidence for the global flood is there, one just needs to know where to look.
the flood was global not rising sea levels. the ice age was post flood see genesisveracity (jim nienhuis) website.hapgood is about crust displacement which may/not be connected with flood. I involve his continental shift parts in my atlantis theory ( at http://headnheart.blogspot.com )(archaeologist;64686)
noah's ark-- we do not need it nor has it been found. ask yourself this, even if such a structure was found, would atheists and other unbelievers accept it as the ark or would they find something with which to dismiss it? my experience has been the latter.
what is your disproof of any/each/all of the 3 ark sites ( ararat, durupinar, suleiman ) ? I didn't say we need it, nor do I say we don't want it.(archaeologist;64686)
part of the equation for everyone is God's criteria for faith. we will get enough evidence to strengthen our faith but not so much that it destroys that criteria. 'without faith one cannot please God.' so it really doesn't matter if we find the ark or not as one needs to weigh the priorities of the evidence we do need and how it wil be received.
you are right that people will believe what they want and everything can be explained away. but I don't agree with blind faith. what is faith? faith in what?Jesus gave plnty of evidences. nature declares creator, "no excuse". faith is not believing without evidence. even the demons believe and tremble. always be ready to give reason for your faith". study to show self approved. search scriptures to see if so. see the recent "unforgivable sin" topic on this forum. God is not so mean and cruel to give us no evidence. part of life is to explore and discover treasures ("keep garden" of adam). only need a mustard seed. doubting Thomas was given chance. etc.(archaeologist;64686)
the thing about some of those people you mention is that i can only give them credit for looking and digging up more clues or artifacts while their conclusions are out n left field. hancock is a good example of this. i have only read one of his books but that was enough for me.
the list was not meant to imply my agreemnent with any of them, i was just trying to be helpful/interesting as I would have liked people to so respond to my own threads/posts.If it is only a list/discussion of verified new revolutionary true discoveries you want then it is more controversial:joshua's jericho definately found (garstang),noah's ark maybe found,joseph in egypt I believe I found but yet to be verified (rohl's jose wrong),david generally agreed to be proven now,etc.(archaeologist;64686)
i have read down's 'unwrapping the pharaohs' and he and ashton make a compelling argument for revisal of the egyptian chronologies, though i doubt we will see it happen. you can add in rohl there as well.
plenty of people have proven that egyptian-biblical chronology needed to be revised: dave rohl, i velikovsky, pete james, i newton, h hoeh, don courville, sid bristowe, la waddell, dav down. Down is not quite right about a few things. here is my own current theory:.........................G-d.........................Eden.........................10/1656.........................Flood.........................Kenan'0 dyn'..................Babel/Reu/Serug/Nahor'0'/1st/(2nd)Dyn.........Terah/Abe/Chedorlaomer2nd......................Isaac(2nd)/3rd................Jacob3rd/Surid/4th............Jose7th......................70Khety....................KohathMoeris/Sesostris.........Moses13th/Aseth...............Josh?-Barak?Hyksos...................JudgesTuthmosis3/[Nilus].......JephthahAmarna...................KDave18th/19th................Solomon/AnoRamses2..................Ano/ShishakMerneptah/Setnakht?......Menelik/Zerah22nd/[1stOlympi]/25th....So/Hezekiah/Tirhakah26thDyn..................Necho/Hophra27th/31st................Persia.(archaeologist;64686)
one thing you should keep in mind is that many non-christian arch. and scholars base their conclusions on what they do not find, which is easy given the fact that any one dig has uncovered less than 5% of the total area (with maybe the odd exception). a good book to read on that topic is K.A. Kitchen's 'The Bible In Its World'. the first 12-20 pages tells the christian of the limited amount of information being used by artch. to determine what took place in the past.
the world can't handle the "little" [alot] that it already has, dont need more (except looking for specific verifications eg atlantis city). I don't like mainstream "cheating" by finding before working out, (incld satelite archaeology etc). As ceram says its the diletantes who often make the revolutionary discoveries. Its getting very depressing how "scientists" discover things every week in the news while the common layman/amateurs are leftout.
(archaeologist;64660)
i looked for a thread onthis and did not find one, so iasked the powers that be and they just said to start one anywhere so here it is.i do not know what you all know about this field and i do not want to insult anyone so i will just open up with a list of some of the good and bad guys.Good guys; k.A. Kitchen, James Hoffmeier, Bryant Wood, John McCray, R.K. Harrison, well that will do for a start though harrison is dead now.Bad guys: (a much easier list) Israel Finkelstein, Wm. Dever, Bart Ehrman, Erich Cline, Philip Davies, James Tabor and many many more.there are some border line people as well but i can't list them right now off the top of my head.if you do not know much or are unsure of someone or what they have said please ask and i will do my best to answer your questions.
I agree with your list of good guys and bad guys. I am a Biblical archaeology enthusiast myself. I have collected many books throughout the years.The publishing company that work for has produced some of Kitchen's books, as well as Hoffmeier and McRay.Some have mentioned the books by E. Raymond Capt. Those are great books!Another book is by David Rohl, entitled, "Pharaohs and Kings" which goes into the history of how the ancient Hebrews played a role in ancient Egypt. His chapters on Joseph are most interesting indeed! Rohl is an athiest himself, but because he is not religiously-biased, he is able to present everything objectively which makes for very interesting reading. http://www.amazon.com/Pharaohs-Kings-David...l/dp/0609801309Here are some more books that, IMHO, are good....Archaeology and the New Testamentby John McRay (This is his latest book, I don't know if you have this one)Bible ArchaeologyAn Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizationsby Alfred J. Hoerth, John McRay (You may already have this one)Doing Archaeology in the Land of the BibleA Basic GuideArchaeology and the Old Testamentby Alfred J. HoerthStudying the Ancient IsraelitesA Guide to Sources and Methodsby Victor H. MatthewsIsraelite ReligionsAn Archaeological and Biblical Surveyby Richard S. HessOther older books, I've read are "Testimony in Stone" by J. Bernard Nicklin.and, "The Great Pyramid Proof of God" by George Riffert.I've also read the books of Barry Fell on the ancient Celts in America.I also have a book on the ancient Druids by Peter Berresford Ellis.So, yes, I'd be interested in discussing these things with you. Maybe we can exchange some knowledge?Kim
i looked for a thread onthis and did not find one, so iasked the powers that be and they just said to start one anywhere so here it is.i do not know what you all know about this field and i do not want to insult anyone so i will just open up with a list of some of the good and bad guys.Good guys; k.A. Kitchen, James Hoffmeier, Bryant Wood, John McCray, R.K. Harrison, well that will do for a start though harrison is dead now.Bad guys: (a much easier list) Israel Finkelstein, Wm. Dever, Bart Ehrman, Erich Cline, Philip Davies, James Tabor and many many more.there are some border line people as well but i can't list them right now off the top of my head.if you do not know much or are unsure of someone or what they have said please ask and i will do my best to answer your questions.
I agree with your list of good guys and bad guys. I am a Biblical archaeology enthusiast myself. I have collected many books throughout the years.The publishing company that work for has produced some of Kitchen's books, as well as Hoffmeier and McRay.Some have mentioned the books by E. Raymond Capt. Those are great books!Another book is by David Rohl, entitled, "Pharaohs and Kings" which goes into the history of how the ancient Hebrews played a role in ancient Egypt. His chapters on Joseph are most interesting indeed! Rohl is an athiest himself, but because he is not religiously-biased, he is able to present everything objectively which makes for very interesting reading. http://www.amazon.com/Pharaohs-Kings-David...l/dp/0609801309Here are some more books that, IMHO, are good....Archaeology and the New Testamentby John McRay (This is his latest book, I don't know if you have this one)Bible ArchaeologyAn Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizationsby Alfred J. Hoerth, John McRay (You may already have this one)Doing Archaeology in the Land of the BibleA Basic GuideArchaeology and the Old Testamentby Alfred J. HoerthStudying the Ancient IsraelitesA Guide to Sources and Methodsby Victor H. MatthewsIsraelite ReligionsAn Archaeological and Biblical Surveyby Richard S. HessOther older books, I've read are "Testimony in Stone" by J. Bernard Nicklin.and, "The Great Pyramid Proof of God" by George Riffert.I've also read the books of Barry Fell on the ancient Celts in America.I also have a book on the ancient Druids by Peter Berresford Ellis.So, yes, I'd be interested in discussing these things with you. Maybe we can exchange some knowledge?Kim
(tim_from_pa;64688)
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him. I compare him to a boy who's all fired up ready to find treasure. He really believes he found treasure, but his parents know it's not real treasure. But it is to the boy. Ron Wyatt could fire up the imagination to the point where he believed stuff himself. However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline. In every field, one has to somewhat conform to the establishment to be praised, but in reality, that stifles independent thinking.I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David.That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David.In addition, Capt is big on related biblical topics such as Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid.
Hi Tim,Yeah, I think Wyatt got a "bad rap", too. Some of his theories were very good in my opinion, such as the "sulfur balls" scattered throughout the Dead Sea area. His theories on Sodom and Gomorrah were very good.Another theory he had was that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in King Zedekiah's Cave which happened to be located under Golgatha were Jesus was crucified. His theory is that when Jesus bled, his blood spilled onto the ground, seeped into the Cave and dripped on to the Mercy Seat of the Ark.The Ark may have been there at one time, but of course, is not anymore. But his other theories such as Noah's Ark being on Mt. Ararat, I don't agree with. I don't think the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, but what the Bible states, "the MOUNTAINS (plural) of Ararat". And of course, Capt's books are excellent, IMO. I can't argue with anything that Capt presented.Kim
What you said about Wyatt is what another close associate said of him. I compare him to a boy who's all fired up ready to find treasure. He really believes he found treasure, but his parents know it's not real treasure. But it is to the boy. Ron Wyatt could fire up the imagination to the point where he believed stuff himself. However, I do believe he may have gotten a bad rap from the rest because he is not mainline. In every field, one has to somewhat conform to the establishment to be praised, but in reality, that stifles independent thinking.I think one possible place of the Ark of the covenant is with the people of Israel when the prophet Jeremiah transferred the throne of David.That brings me to Capt. Capt is big on tracing the lost tribes of Israel and their migrations, cuneiform tablets, relics and so forth with the ancient Khumri, Cimmerians, Sakka, etc, etc. to the lost house of Israel. That includes tracing the royal lineage of King David.In addition, Capt is big on related biblical topics such as Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid.
Hi Tim,Yeah, I think Wyatt got a "bad rap", too. Some of his theories were very good in my opinion, such as the "sulfur balls" scattered throughout the Dead Sea area. His theories on Sodom and Gomorrah were very good.Another theory he had was that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in King Zedekiah's Cave which happened to be located under Golgatha were Jesus was crucified. His theory is that when Jesus bled, his blood spilled onto the ground, seeped into the Cave and dripped on to the Mercy Seat of the Ark.The Ark may have been there at one time, but of course, is not anymore. But his other theories such as Noah's Ark being on Mt. Ararat, I don't agree with. I don't think the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, but what the Bible states, "the MOUNTAINS (plural) of Ararat". And of course, Capt's books are excellent, IMO. I can't argue with anything that Capt presented.Kim
I hope this still works;http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htmThere has been several programs on TBN and NRB that agree with these findings. I believe that National Geographic even had a show on this.I realize that some of the people who promote many of the claims have been proven frauds or just plain old denied. I have watched Kent Hovind, Ken Hamm, Carl Baugh, Grant Jeffries and Steve Quayle as well as many others and I realize that many of their claims seem fanciful or fraudulent, but what if they are right and some one or group is hiding the truth and making those who present this truth to be nut jobs to discount them. I mean there is plenty of evidnece for alot of their claims and theories and only a small portion is questionable and could possible go either way. We do know for a fact that many in this world would do anything possible to keep Christianity from being proven true thru whatever means possible. The Dead Sea Scroll were kept hidden from Christian groups for over 40 years and still are not all available, how many may have been destroyed because of Christian content? People are not allowed to investigate certain areas of the world like the mountains where Noahs Ark is believed to have landed. Bellow the Dome of the Rock the Muslims are destroying catecombs full of evidence for both Christianity and Judaism, stones are being found in the landfill with inscriptions from these faiths coming from the Domes Catecombs which are off limits to any one outside the Islamic faith.