Originally posted by Zahlanzi
each of those, from their point of view insulted something that doesn't exist.

i am a religious man and i can say, "robbie, your god is a jerk!" because i believe he isn't real so no real danger of smiting AND he really is a jerk. i have said why. one cannot be the god of love and do all of those things in the old testament. what is more sad is that you ...[text shortened]... me and can end me at any time to be benevolent, thank you very much.

If it was good enough for the Christ its good enough for me, you choose your own path!

Originally posted by Agerg
Where is this evidence you have for saying it was destroyed as the bible says? please cite your sources from somewhere more reliable than, say, www.wesayanythingforthebible.com

His assumption has no less reason or substantiation than you have - that it has little in common with your interpretation is irrelevant; his interpretation might be better!

Jericho has been subjected to excavations during three different expeditions (1907-1909; 1930-1936; 1952-1958) and the successive interpretations of the findings demonstrate again the fact that archaeology, like other fields of human science, is not a source of positively stable information. Each of the three expeditions has produced data, but each has arrived at different conclusions as to the history of the city and particularly as to the date of its fall before the Israelite conquerors. At any rate, the combined results may be said to present the general picture set forth in the book Biblical Archaeology, by G. E. Wright (1963, p. 78), which states: “The city underwent a terrible destruction or a series of destructions during the second millennium B.C., and remained virtually unoccupied for generations.” The destruction was accompanied by intense fire, as is shown by the excavated evidence

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Jericho has been subjected to excavations during three different expeditions (1907-1909; 1930-1936; 1952-1958) and the successive interpretations of the findings demonstrate again the fact that archaeology, like other fields of human science, is not a source of positively stable information. Each of the three expeditions has produced data, but each h ...[text shortened]... rations.” The destruction was accompanied by intense fire, as is shown by the excavated evidence

Ah yes Biblical archaeology...no bias there eh Robbie? Anyway, a few choice quotes from wikipedia for you to peruse (the second and third are particularly important):

By the middle of the 20th century the work of Albright and his students, notably Nelson Glueck, E. A. Speiser, G. Ernest Wright and Cyrus Gordon, had produced a consensus that biblical archaeology had provided physical evidence for the originating historical events behind the Old Testament narratives: in the words of Albright, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history."[5] The consensus allowed the creation of authoritative textbooks such as John Bright's History of Israel (1959).[6] Bright did not believe that the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph could be regarded as reliable history, or that it was possible to reconstruct the origins of Israel from the biblical text alone, but he did believe that the stories in Genesis reflected the physical reality of the 20th–17th centuries BC, and that it was therefore possible to write a history of the origins of Israel by comparing the biblical accounts with what was known of the time from other sources.[7]

The Albrightian consensus was overturned in the second half of the 20th century. Improved archaeological methods, notably Kathleen Kenyon's excavations at Jericho, did not support the conclusions the biblical archaeologists had drawn, with the result that central theories squaring the biblical narrative with archaeological finds, such as Albright's reconstruction of Abraham as an Amorite donkey caravaneer, were rejected by the archaeological community. The challenge reached its climax with the publication of two important studies: In 1974 Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives re-examined the record of biblical archaeology in relation to the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis and concluded that "not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the Patriarchal narratives to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely." [8] and in 1975 John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition reached a similar conclusion about the usefulness of tradition history: "A vague presupposition about the antiquity of the tradition based upon a consensus approval of such arguments should no longer be used as a warrant for proposing a history of the tradition related to early premonarchic times."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology_school

Although Kenyon had no doubt the sites she excavated were linked to the Old Testament narrative she nevertheless drew attention to inconsistencies, concluding that Solomon's "stables" at Megiddo were totally impractical for holding horses (1978:72), and that Jericho fell long before Joshua's arrival (1978:35). Consequently Kenyon's work has been cited to support the minimalist school of Palestinian archaeology that argues the pre-586 BCE. Old Testament historical account was highly exaggerated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kenyon

God_{Zahlanzi} still seems to be holding up pretty well against God_{Robbie Carrobie}

Originally posted by Agerg
Ah yes Biblical archaeology...no bias there eh Robbie? Anyway, a few choice quotes from wikipedia for you to peruse (the second and third are particularly important):
[quote]By the middle of the 20th century the work of Albright and his students, notably Nelson Glueck, E. A. Speiser, [b]G. Ernest Wright and Cyrus Gordon, had produced a consensus that bibl Zahlanzi} still seems to be holding up pretty well against God_{Robbie Carrobie}[/b]

the opinions of mere mortals, Jericho was destroyed at the time that the Bible states, indeed shall we look up those archaeologists who stated that there was no such place as the Biblical Jericho only to have their room full of mirrors smashed, well then, dont get wide or ill load the cannons!

For this reason numerous scholars date the fall of Jericho on circumstantial evidence, and suggested dates span a period of about 200 years. In view of such uncertainty, Professor Merrill F. Unger fittingly observes: “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164.

Therefore, the fact that the interpretations of archaeologists do not agree with Biblical chronology in pointing to 1473 B.C.E. as the date for Jericho’s destruction is no reason for concern. The difference in the viewpoint of Garstang and other archaeologists about Jericho illustrates the need for caution in accepting archaeological testimony regardless of whether it seems to confirm or to contradict the Bible record and its chronology.

Indeed Kathleen Turner whom you seem to have quoted did not even think that Jericho had even existed, what a noob, so much for her testimony, looks like the pillars of Zhalansi god are rather shaky to say the least!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the opinions of mere mortals, Jericho was destroyed at the time that the Bible states, indeed shall we look up those archaeologists who stated that there was no such place as the Biblical Jericho only to have their room full of mirrors smashed, well then, dont get wide or ill load the cannons!

Mere mortals with greater expertise in archaeology than yourself or the "archaeologists" they rebuked I'll wager, and with far less bias!

Sorry Robbie but you really must try harder; I'm not a member of your flock who will just sit nodding my head at whatever you tell us without doing any checking.

[edit] What!? You mean this Kathleen Turner?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Turner

Oh well in that case I stand corrected! 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
Mere mortals with greater expertise in archaeology than yourself or the "archaeologists" they rebuked I'll wager, and with far less bias!

Sorry Robbie but you really must try harder; I'm not a member of your flock who will just sit nodding my head at whatever you tell us without doing any checking.

Kathleen Kenyon on which your whole argument is based did not even think that Jericho existed until it was proven that it did, expert testimony indeed, what a Noobster! ass for you , your quotes prove what, that is correct, absolutely nothing, that there is difference of opinion between archaeologists, well that real damning agers, perhaps you may like to consult the Beano on your next try! sorry Agers, citing a source that proves nothing confirms only one thing, your argument is deviod of any substance, as usual!

edited text, Kenyon, like it changes the substance, not!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Kathleen Turner on which your whole argument is based did not even think that Jericho existed until it was proven that it did, expert testimony indeed, what a Noobster!

Well I actually quoted Kathleen Kenyon, pray tell Robbie; what leads you to suspect she thought Jericho never existed!??? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I actually quoted Kathleen Kenyon, pray tell Robbie; what leads you to suspect she thought Jericho never existed!??? 😕

edited text, Agers! opps,

perhaps I better rephrase that, did not think that it existed at the time of the Israelite invasion,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
edited text, Agers!

Still waiting for the bit where you show me where there is a clear unambiguous implication she believed Jericho never existed since I have, in response, evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Agerg
Still waiting for the bit where you show me where there is a clear unambiguous implication she believed Jericho never existed since I have, in response, evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you had better sit down for it Agers! what's that the sound of your jaw dropping to the floor, worth the wait!

Dr. Bryant G. Wood, an archaeologist from the University of Toronto, Canada, has taken a fresh look at the evidence from Jericho. According to The New York Times, he has concluded that Dr. Kenyon “had been looking for the wrong kind of pottery, and in the wrong places,” and that the evidence is actually in “remarkable agreement” with the Bible.

Dr. Wood cites a three-foot-thick [1 m] layer of ash laden with pottery sherds, fragments of bricks from a fallen wall, and timbers, all blackened as if by a citywide fire. The ceramic fragments have been dated (with the admittedly inexact methods available) at 1410 before our Common Era, give or take 40 years—not at all far from 1473 B.C.E., the date for the battle of Jericho derived from the Bible.

looking in the wrong place? at the wrong kind of pottery, well duh! Next time you cite a reference Agers, make sure they know what they are looking for and where to find it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps you had better sit down for it Agers! what's that the sound of your jaw dropping to the floor, worth the wait!

Dr. Bryant G. Wood, an archaeologist from the University of Toronto, Canada, has taken a fresh look at the evidence from Jericho. According to The New York Times, he has concluded that Dr. Kenyon “had been looking for the wrong k ...[text shortened]... you cite a reference Agers, make sure they know what they are looking for and where to find it!

Oh another Young Earth Creationist "archaeologist" with a vested interest in attacking the credentials of anyone who stands in the way of their silly views. I suppose if he says she smells like dog food I'd have to unquestioningly believe that too! 😴

Apparantly the claims of this Wood feller were rebuked afterwards by Kenyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood

Why don't you cite some person who doesn't have the bias you have?

Originally posted by Agerg
Oh another Young Earth Creationist "archaeologist" with a vested interest in attacking the credentials of anyone who stands in the way of their silly views. I suppose if he says she smells like dog food I'd have to unquestioningly believe that too! 😴

Why don't you cite some person who doesn't have the bias you have?

Dr. Bryant G. Wood, an archaeologist from the University of Toronto, well well, obviously he got his doctorate by mere chance, fell into the Clyde and came up with it in his pocket, yah think having a doctorate would mean anything Agers, i mean do they give them away, the only person showing bias is you. What about his evidence Agers, are you prepared to dismiss that as well, pathetic attempt to undermine the creditability of the inspired word! Ol Kathleen was a noob, B. G Wood da man! Oh yes wikipedia, the last bastion of the desperate atheist, it is to laugh!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr. Bryant G. Wood, an archaeologist from the University of Toronto, well well, obviously he got his doctorate by mere chance, fell into the Clyde and came up with it in his pocket, yah think having a doctorate would mean anything Agers, i mean do they give them away, the only person showing bias is you. What about his evidence Agers, are you prepar ...[text shortened]... to undermine the creditability of the inspired word! Ol Kathleen was a noob, B. G Wood da man!

I have more respect for his Engineering masters than his Phd in Bible thumping and history inventing.
again:

Apparantly the claims of this Wood feller were rebuked afterwards by Kenyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood

Originally posted by Agerg
I have more respect for his Engineering masters than his Phd in Bible thumping and history inventing.
again:

Apparantly the claims of this Wood feller were rebuked afterwards by Kenyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood

no they were not rebuked Agers, Woods produced evidence for his claim, they only discrepancy is in the dating, the mere fact that ol Kenyon is accepted proves nothing. Jericho existed, was zapped by God and thats it.

here is the actual quotation,

In 1995 fresh evidence became available in the form of charred cereal grains from the City IV destruction layer. Radiocarbon dating of these grains showed that Jericho City IV was destroyed "during the late 17th or the 16th century BC", in line with Kenyon's findings, and that "the fortified Bronze Age city at Tell es-Sultan [Jericho] was not destroyed by ca.1400 BC, as Wood (1990) suggested".[6] Wood argues that the discrepancy is part of the ongoing dispute between Egyptologists and radiocarbon experts that centers around the date of the Thera eruption,

now Agers i dont know what this discrepancy is about, but i am going with Woods on this, not someone that did didn't know where or what to look for, you need not of course accept the testimony, but its there.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no they were not rebuked Agers, Woods produced evidence for his claim, they only discrepancy is in the dating, the mere fact that ol Kenyon is accepted proves nothing. Jericho existed, was zapped by God and thats it.

here is the actual quotation,

In 1995 fresh evidence became available in the form of charred cereal grains from the City IV des now where or what to look for, you need not of course accept the testimony, but its there.

I'll take the concensus of opinion of the scholarly community independent of bias than your champions of false teaching thankyou very much.

God_{Zahlanzi} is still standing firm against God_{Robbie Carrobie} :]