Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Archeology oopses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, Wikipedia has a reference to 2007:

    Source: Wikipedia

    The tablets provide a wealth of information on Syria and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age,[8] and include the first known references to the "Canaanites", "Ugarit", and "Lebanon".[9]

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source


    Though they do say that "The present consensus is that Ebla's role in biblical archaeology, strictly speaking, is minimal.[2]", the point remains that Canaanites are mentioned, which along with "tehom", is all that is claimed in the opening post.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Wikipedia is too brief and incomplete reference to be used in an argument here. I gave academic sources that were more complete and specific.

    ". . . strictly speaking, is minimal." is heavy hint your claims are a clear over statement of your claims.

    References to Canaanites, Ugarit and Lebanon DO NOT justify your original claims of Hebrew equivalent references in the Elba tablets to support a Pentateuch dating ~2300 BCE(?).
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2019, 08:26 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      It does not support the existence of Hebrew text ~2300 BCE for which there is no evidence.
      Biblical references would make it very surprising if there were such evidence.
      sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        References to Canaanites, Ugarit and Lebanon DO NOT justify your original claims of Hebrew equivalent references in the Elba tablets to support a Pentateuch dating ~2300 BCE(?).
        Source: Bryant Wood

        Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine.

        © Copyright Original Source


        So there is no claim here that the Pentateuch is from about 2300 BCE.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Source: Bryant Wood

          Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine.

          © Copyright Original Source


          So there is no claim here that the Pentateuch is from about 2300 BCE.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          I'm confused.
          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Biblical references would make it very surprising if there were such evidence.
            Yes, at this point it would be very surprising if new archaeological evidence became available now.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Source: Bryant Wood

              Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine.

              © Copyright Original Source


              So there is no claim here that the Pentateuch is from about 2300 BCE.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              I did not say there was no 'claim.' Bryant Wood is a young earth Creationist with a literal Biblical agenda.

              I said, the best comprehensive academic translations, and commentary say 'no,' and as your citation stated, "The present consensus is that Ebla's role in biblical archaeology, strictly speaking, is minimal."

              The minimal extent is in the context is that Sumerian records are the earliest of the evolution of cuneiform text as previously described
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                Source: Bryant Wood

                Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Originally posted by lee_merrill
                So there is no claim here that the Pentateuch is from about 2300 BCE.
                I'm confused.
                So the claim by the skeptics was that the accounts in the Pentateuch were invalid, since "Canaan" was said to be a name newer than 2300 B.C. The Ebla tablets show that the name "Canaan" was after all used as early as 2300 B.C., so the accounts in the Pentateuch can be valid, and the Pentateuch itself could have written down or included these accounts later;

                Like the Pentateuch includes "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", but that doesn't imply that the Pentateuch was written back then...

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  I said, the best comprehensive academic translations, and commentary say 'no,' and as your citation stated, "The present consensus is that Ebla's role in biblical archaeology, strictly speaking, is minimal."
                  And as my citation states, "Canaanites" are mentioned in the Ebla tablets. Are you saying they are not mentioned?!

                  That (and the mention of "tehom") is all that is being claimed here.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    So the claim by the skeptics was that the accounts in the Pentateuch were invalid, since "Canaan" was said to be a name newer than 2300 B.C. The Ebla tablets show that the name "Canaan" was after all used as early as 2300 B.C., so the accounts in the Pentateuch can be valid, and the Pentateuch itself could have written down or included these accounts later;
                    The issue is not whether the Pentateuch is valid or not. The question is the relationship between the Elba tablets and the Hebrew Pentateuch. NO, the word 'Canaan' is not necessarily newer than 2300 BCE. Canaan is simply the ancient name of a region around Palestine. As far as I know the Elba tablets did not mention 'Canaanites,' but I will check.


                    Like the Pentateuch includes "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", but that doesn't imply that the Pentateuch was written back then. . .
                    Actually no, it does imply nothing other than the claim that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

                    . . . as your citation stated, "The present consensus is that Ebla's role in biblical archaeology, strictly speaking, is minimal."

                    There is a relationship but it is minimal.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-20-2019, 07:54 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A church experts doubted existed has apparently been found...

                      Source: Christian Headlines

                      "[U]ntil its recent discovery, many scholars questioned [the church's] existence. Although it is mentioned in Byzantine pilgrimage itineraries, many thought these reports mistaken."

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      This is a church reportedly built over the house of Peter and Andrew.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        A church experts doubted existed has apparently been found...

                        Source: Christian Headlines

                        "[U]ntil its recent discovery, many scholars questioned [the church's] existence. Although it is mentioned in Byzantine pilgrimage itineraries, many thought these reports mistaken."

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        This is a church reportedly built over the house of Peter and Andrew.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Yes, they found a church, but the belief that the church 'reportedly' built over the house of Peter and Andrew remains 'reportedly conjecture.'
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          A church experts doubted existed has apparently been found...

                          Source: Christian Headlines

                          "[U]ntil its recent discovery, many scholars questioned [the church's] existence. Although it is mentioned in Byzantine pilgrimage itineraries, many thought these reports mistaken."

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          This is a church reportedly built over the house of Peter and Andrew.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          I read a little deeper from different sources, and the conclusions are a bit tentative, after two years of excavation. They found an early byzantine church on a traditional cite of the early church. LEt's wait and see what they can find.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X