# Bite my sweet atheist fact-checking Bible-reading ass, Danielinthewolvesden!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [December 13, 2000, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276 "2000-12-13T01:38:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/41 "2000-12-13T21:50:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> \*\*Oh dear, I’ve gone and put my foot in my mouth.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> > (1) Are city sites ever abandoned permanently?
> > yes
> > 2) Why?
> > Many reasons (a) environmental shifts (b) depopulation © political reasons
> > 3) Are those sites not often repopulated later on bec. of the inherent advantages (excepting (a) of course):
>
> \*\*
Which was exactly my point. A good site for a city, which remains VITAL (ie, it is not covered by the sands of the desert, or similar great environmental shifts), is never abandoned permanently. Perhaps you did not undersatnd what i meant by “vital”. Jericho has been a good city for habitation for some 10,000 years.
---
### Author:  [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/42 "2000-12-13T21:56:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \*
> \*\*C’mon, Gaudere, are you really surprised by this behavior at this point? Most people just ignore him when the first (of presumably a dozen) feet gets wedged in his mouth. \*\*
The surprising think, for me, is that I used to think that his problem was just shoddy scholarship and a juvenile sense of entitlement. Now, however, it turns out he is actually genuinely dishonest: in the “Historical records agreeing holy books?” thread he repeated his longstanding claim that the Internet Infidels are unreliable and take quotes out of context. He’s been quite vehement on this point in the past, on several occasions. When we asked him to prove it, he could only point to _one single essay_ that he could claim had out of context quotes. This is already problematic, since he said that the Infidels site was riddled with errors; repeated requests that he discuss more essays were met with typical DITWDian silence. But get this: once we demanded cites from him, we found out that actually the Internet Infidels didn’t misrepresent their sources at all- it was _DITWD_ who was taking quotes from the Infidels out of context in order to lie about what they were actually saying. His response, of course, was to ignore all the evidence and start saying things like “tough noogies” to everyone who disagreed with him. And it gets better! He then started launching personal attacks against me in a separate (and totally unrelated!) thread (and in GD, not the Pit!) and when I asked him when he was going to retract his false accusations against the Infidels, he replied that _everyone in the old thread agreed with him_ that the Infidels were biased! I mean, come on! How baldfaced can a lie get?
What’s particularly ludicrous is that after having shot his credibility entirely to hell, he _still_ maintains that any attempt to get a cite out of him can only be motivated by personal animus or bigotry against Christianity, rather than an understandable unwillingness to take a known liar at his word. Best of all, he directed a long rant at Gaudere accusing her of using “tricks” and crowing that he was going to turn her tricks against her, because “SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER!” The funny part? He concluded by telling Gaudere, “it wouldn’t kill you to act nicer.”
-Ben
---
### Author:  [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/43 "2000-12-13T21:58:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> > \*\*Oh dear, I’ve gone and put my foot in my mouth.
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> > > (1) Are city sites ever abandoned permanently?
> > > yes
> > > 2) Why?
> > > Many reasons (a) environmental shifts (b) depopulation © political reasons
> > > 3) Are those sites not often repopulated later on bec. of the inherent advantages (excepting (a) of course):
> >
> > \*\*
>
> Which was exactly my point. A good site for a city, which remains VITAL (ie, it is not covered by the sands of the desert, or similar great environmental shifts), is never abandoned permanently. Perhaps you did not undersatnd what i meant by “vital”. Jericho has been a good city for habitation for some 10,000 years. \*\*
(1) Insofar as it does seem to have ceased to be an urban agglomeration according to what has been posted, it seems to have lost its vitalness
(2) As Gaudere, I understood your weasely comment in the context of trying to argue that Jericho must never have been abandoned, in order to argue that it must not have been abandoned when the Israelites wandered by. If you’re simply making a comment that useful urban sites tend to get reused, well yes, but that’s not terribly relevant to the Q now is it?
(3) See my working definition of populated. Where are you in re this definition.
---
### Author:  [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/44 "2000-12-13T22:11:34Z")
Ben & Gaudere: “DITWD, you said that the Infidels said something they didn’t say.”
DITWD: “Oh, puh-leeze! I PROVIDED EVERY CITE YOU ASKED FOR on the destruction of Jericho!”
B&G: “Yes, but you were wrong about the Infidels.”
D: “You’re being completely unreasonable- I gave extensive references to Kenyon’s research which support my claims about Jericho.”
B&G: “But what about your claims about the Infidels?”
D: “Look, what more do you ask of me? I provided cites from Asimov, and it wasn’t good enough. I provided cites from archaeologists, and it wasn’t good enough. No matter what I do, it’s just not good enough for you. :rolleyes: I guess you guys are pretty desperate to disbelieve the Bible.”
B&G: “But we were talking about the Internet Infidels…”
Folks, don’t expect him to talk about the Infidels. Time and again, DITWD has used the diversionary tactic of talking about the archaeology of Jericho so he won’t have to face one simple fact: he took quotes from the Infidels out of context in order to support the false accusations he made against them. Like I said, the only time he addressed the Infidels at all after his hypocrisy was exposed was when he went to another thread and tried to claim that everyone had agreed with him.
And to think he called _me_ a weasel…
-Ben
---
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/45 "2000-12-13T22:16:09Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gaudere \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > And what does her quote say? Exactly that.
>
> Only if you only read HALF THE SENTENCE. The ENTIRE sentence states that there is no evidence of the Biblical account, and it in fact occured 60 years before Exodus was supposed to occur. I find your remark here frankly disingenous.
>
> You have yet to back up your claim that she believed the earlier time of Exodus allowed Joshua to conquer a small village and consider it a conquest of mighty walled Jericho. Every quote I have seen by her says the Joshua conquest story is discredited. _I am willing to believe you, but back up your statements_. The only source that backs _in any way_ up your claim that she believed there was a small village there is the Infidels site you sneer at.
>
> "The evidence is clear. Garstang was correct in his identification of the wall Joshua attacked and Kenyon was correct in dating this event to be the end of EBIII. They were of course both wrong in their ABSOLUTE dating which was based on an erroneous Egyptian chronology. But then that is the solution to ALL the anomalies and problems found extensively on most sites in the Near East.
>
> Next week we will review the latest work on Jericho and sum up the evidence that Jericho confirms _in all its aspects the Biblical Account._" This appears to be arguing that no city has ever been abandoned _at one time_, particularly since you are trying to use it to argue that Jericho couldn’t have been abandoned when Joshua arrived, as the archeologists were saying. What in the world _were_ you trying to argue here?
> \*\*
Read kenyons quote again. It says- there was a TOWN there, (well after the destruction of the great City earlier), and that that town COULD have been attacked by Joshua- but there is no archeological evidence he did so. Exactly my point. There was a town- (not a small village, a big difference), which existed well after the Great Jericho was destroyed. It was destroyed ABOUT the time that Biblical Authorities say that Joshua did it. However, if those same Biblical authorities are _exactly_ correct as to their dating (which I have always disputed, note) then Joshua could not have destroyed it. So, then my theory is simply that the Biblical dating is off. It is not impossible tho, with the margin of error in Archeological dating, that they are right- but this is doubtful.
Now, my point about cities not being abandoned for long- is that the site of Great jericho, destroyed hundred of years prior- was likley re-inhabited after. And Kenyon says yes to that. Kenyon never stated that Joshua did attack that town, or that the dating of the Bible was wrong. She said that if the dating of the Bible was correct (and she never accepted, or specifically disputed that), then that town was not the one attacked by Joshua. Thus- either that town was not attacked by Joshua- OR the dating of the Bible is wrong.
You keep harping on that “no evidence” as if she meant that it did not happen. NO- she said there was no archeological evidence that the town was attacked by Joshua. Lack of evidence, especially in an area with poor archeological evidence (that era was obscured by other eras) is not the same as “it did not happen”.
Yes, the cite I gave thinks that the dating problem would solve the whole thing, and that Great Jericho was destroyed by Joshua- but the dating is way off. Maybe so. Does answer a lot of questions. But, it is not my theory.
---
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/46 "2000-12-13T22:36:11Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> \*\*Oh dear, I’ve gone and put my foot in my mouth.
>
> 1. Are those sites not often repopulated later on bec. of the inherent advantages (excepting (a) of course):
>
> (1) Insofar as it does seem to have ceased to be an urban agglomeration according to what has been posted, it seems to have lost its vitalness
> (2) As Gaudere, I understood your weasely comment in the context of trying to argue that Jericho must never have been abandoned, in order to argue that it must not have been abandoned when the Israelites wandered by. If you’re simply making a comment that useful urban sites tend to get reused, well yes, but that’s not terribly relevant to the Q now is it? \*\*
The insinuation I read into the infidels site, was that Kenyon proved that great Jericho was destroyed hundreds of yeras before Joshua- Thus & ipso facto (again, my interpretation of what was said) Joshua had nothing to attack (except perhaps a “small village”)- thus the Bible is wrong.
My point was that, yes, Great Jericho was destroyed- and likely not by Joshua. But as that was a “vital” site for habitation, there were more towns & cities on that site. PERHAPS, it was one of those that Joshua attacked. Now, Kenyon stated there was a later TOWN there, rebuilt on the Great Jericho site- which was there at ABOUT the right time for Joshua. Ie- it was a “useful urban site”, and yes, it got reused. Was that later town actually attacked by Joshua? There is insuffiecient archeological eveidence to say yea or nay. But- that “reasonable doubt”, which is all i am saying is there- is way off from “There was absolutely no city there & then, thus the entire story is proven a myth”.
As to your city at the oasis. There has been habitation there for thousands of years- after all, it is a source of good water in the desert. It was made a capital, and then destroyed. Thus, as there was no longer any political reason for a large city- no large city was rebuilt. But, as the site still remained a good one, environmentally, human habitation came back. Thus- the political changes which occured cannot overrule the fact that no major environmental changes happened- thus no abandonment.
---
### Author:  [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/47 "2000-12-13T22:52:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Read kenyons quote again. It says- there was a TOWN there, (well after the destruction of the great City earlier), and that that town COULD have been attacked by Joshua- but there is no archeological evidence he did so. Exactly my point.
Oh, _I_ see. So if someone is quoted as saying “my grandmother could have burnt down 352 Main, but there is no evidence she did so and that is difficult to reconcile that with her birth 60 years previously”, we just ignore the rest of the sentence and say “See! this person says she could have burned it down!”
> [@](#):
>
> She said that if the dating of the Bible was correct (and she never accepted, or specifically disputed that), then that town was not the one attacked by Joshua.
So she never specifically disputed the currect dating of the Bible, which said he could not have conquered it. Thanks.
> [@](#):
>
> . However, if those same Biblical authorities are _exactly_ correct as to their dating (which I have always disputed, note) then Joshua could not have destroyed it. So, then my theory is simply that the Biblical dating is off. It is not impossible tho, with the margin of error in Archeological dating, that they are right- but this is doubtful.
Y’know, Daniel, all the established archeologists I have read seem to agree with pretty much the same sort of dating system. I suspect to completetly redate the Bible would screw things up more than it fixes; I kinda trust that they know what they’re talking about when they try to date the various Biblical events, and if the could get everything hunky-dory by moving the dates around, they would. I’ve seen arguments both pro and con for 1260BC v. 1440BC for Exodus, and neither fit the Biblical accounts perfectly (if one accepts the validity of the archeology). You are apparently tossing all their work out the window and telling them they’re wrong, just based on your _opinion_. I genuinely trust established Biblical archeologists ability to date various events far, far more than I trust you when it comes to this sort of thing, for manifestly obvious reasons.
AS for your remarks about cites being abandoned, I see we have gone from
> [@](#):
>
> Through-out history, a vital site for a town/city has never been completely abandoned. If it is a good site for a city, there will be some sort of City."
to
> [@](#):
>
> Now, my point about cities not being abandoned for long- is that the site of Great jericho, destroyed hundred of years prior- was likley re-inhabited after.
Not to mention, wasn’t Jericho supposed to be abandoned until Hiel in 9th cen. BC after Joshua’s “conquest”? So first you have to argue that cities were never abandoned for a long time, then you have to argue that they _were_. ::bewildered shrug::
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2000, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/48 "2000-12-13T23:46:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> \*\* I visited the site of Sijilmassa on a tour a little while back. It is abandoned to this date. You can walk out to it from nearby Risani, which is not the same location. I don’t know how long the interruption in habitation for the area was, but the city site is definatively abandoned.
> \*\*
OK, who let **J Peterman** into the BBQ Pit? And did you bring **Eve** back any clothes?
---
### Author:  [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/49 "2000-12-14T00:21:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Ukulele Ike \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by dropzone \*
> > I am quite sure I would never wish to bite his ass.
>
> How about if you were ravenously hungry, and _John Corrado’s_ ass had the flavor of wild strawberries?
>
> How about if we let you wear a blindfold?
>
> (Oh, man, I am going to be in SUCH deep shit when _John Corrado_ shows up…) \*\*
I can’t speak for **dropzone** , but blindfold or no he’d better shave before I’m biting anything.
---
### Author:  [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/50 "2000-12-14T00:58:41Z")
Collounsbury, you were too nice and polite and genteel with our guest of “honor.”
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*
> **Your assertion was and is a bit silly, insofar as I understand it.**
No, it was one of the most astonishingly ignorant things I’ve ever read: “There are no abandoned cities!”
Oh, **Daniel**! _ **Come here, you skunk-felcher!** _
:slaps **Daniel** upside the noggin:
Aren’t you aware that both North and South America is littered with abandoned cities? Have you never heard of the Inca city Machu Pichu in Peru? The Mayans’ Chichen Itza in Mexico? Hell, the Mayans abandoned several cities _by themselves!_ Some of those cities were so over-grown with vegetation, they couldn’t be seen from the air and had to be hacked out of the rain-forest with hand tools!
Have you ever heard of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico? It’s an old Anasazi settlement that’s very much unoccupied, I assure you. (I’ve been there myself. It’s a fuckin’ _National Monument!_) Then there’s Mesa Verde in Colorado and Canyon de Chelley in Arizona. _All abandoned._
Have you never heard of Angkor Wat? An _abandoned_ city in Cambodia. Did you know archaeologists used Space Shuttle photos to locate what appears to be the city of Ur, the city that gave us the word “urban”? Guess what: _IT’S ABANDONED!!_ In fact, it looks like there’s little left of it above the surface, but there may be remains buried deep beneath the sands. (Shades of Indiana Jones…)
Hey, there’s another city that was abandoned: Petra, the city located in Jordan, carved from the walls of a canyon, that Spielberg used as a location for the ending of the third _Jones_ movie.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. (I didn’t even mention the Egyptians.) Want me to go on?
Trust me, you DON’T want me to go on.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/51 "2000-12-14T02:40:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by MikeG \*
> **Back off drop, you’re marrried!**
Actually, vituperous exchanges like are going on between the OP and her subject are why I was never interested in bar fights. So boring, by comparison. But even a married guy’s mind can wander, sometimes.
I regret that it has been so nasty because I am interested in the topic. But who can follow charges and countercharges? It does remind me of the letters column in _Biblical Archeology._
Of course, this is nothing compared with a battle for first chair, first violin.
---
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/52 "2000-12-14T08:21:37Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gaudere Y’know, Daniel, all the established archeologists I have read seem to agree with pretty much the same sort of dating system. I suspect to completetly redate the Bible would screw things up more than it fixes; I kinda trust that they know what they’re talking about when they try to date the various Biblical events, and if the could get everything hunky-dory by moving the dates around, they would. I’ve seen arguments both pro and con for 1260BC v. 1440BC for Exodus, and neither fit the Biblical accounts perfectly (if one accepts the validity of the archeology). . I genuinely trust established Biblical archeologists ability to date various events. \*\*
OK- it is time for me to ask YOU to back THAT up- you see Archeologists cannot agree on any accurate dates fof Pre-Kingdom Isreali history. The dates we commonly use are those set by Theological experts. They take an established date- then figure back & forth based upon times mentioned in the Bible. The Oxford History of the Biblical World does not accept any such dates. They will barely stand behind estimates like “about 1200BCE, Iron Age I, Iron Age II, Late Bronze etc” without caveats & demurrers. The “date” they have come up for the “conquest” is “about 1200BCE” or “Iron Age I”. Pottery shard analysis & carbon dating is only good to within a century or so. So there is certainly 40 years leeway. Not to mention that Isreal was already a “people” with an army in 1209BC.
Now, the date for the Exodus, ie 1260BCE, with a Conquest then that starts in 1220BCE or so, takes into account the famous “40 years” of “wandering in the wilderness”. I beleive, and so do others, that the 40 year figure is not a reality based number- that it only has mystic or gematria significance. You take 40 years off those calculated dates- and you get very close to Dame Kenyons period. However, check GD- there has been a “recount” on the Jericho issue.
---
### Author:  [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/53 "2000-12-14T16:54:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> OK- it is time for me to ask YOU to back THAT up-
:amused: Back up what? That the established archeologists I have seen pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems? Would you like a list of my links so that you can see that all the websites I have checked all have pretty much the same dates? Or do you want a cite that shows that I do not trust that _you_ are correct and established biblical archeologists are wrong? I think this thread conclusively proves _that_. 😃
FWIW, if any archeologist has had serious problems with the current common dating system, I haven’t heard it; some very few apparently like the 1440BC date, but it appears to have serious problems with the archeology. [http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html](http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html) The only truly funky dating system I’ve seen is from that first site you linked to; and even you don’t really buy it, and I suspect most archeologists would laugh their ass off.
In case you missed it, the point of my previous post was to chastise you for hubris. I mean, look at what we’ve gone through with your claims: “cities were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites cities were never abandoned for long” (also, apparently, wrong). (Are you going to address Jab1’s and Collunsbury’s and my remarks regarding this?) Now we’re supposed to believe you when you say that the Biblical authorities and Biblical archeologists are all wrong in their dating, and you have the right of it? (I don’t think your knowledge of the Bible is all that impressive, either, particularly for a Christian.) I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Your knowledge of history and the Bible itself is not significant enough that I can lend any credence to your claims; find archeologists who back you up and I’ll listen, but simply saying “they’re wrong” when YOU’VE been wrong so many times is utterly unconvincing. You remind me of creationists who can’t tell DNA from a hole in the ground claiming that scientists are all wrong. Hell, at least the creationists have lots of cites supporting them–all I can get from you is a few quotes from a secondhand source, and given your evident inability to properly comprehend many of the things you read, I’m not sure I accept that you have the correct interpretation of what you _do_ cite!
I’m moving quotes from your last post in GD so I can speak more freely. You’re posting in the wrong flippin’ thread for a post about Jericho, anyhow–we were discussing that in a _different_ thread.
> [@](#):
>
> As to Jericho & Kenyon. I quote: “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age city that Joshua captured”.\* Now, if you remember, i had read Kenyons book myself, years ago, and my memory was that she was very open to Joshua actually capturing a later city that “Great Jericho” itself, and was disapointed that there was so little evidence of it Which is what she meant in the (out of context) quote about there being “no evidence” of it.
That’s your own “out-of-context” quote, dude. I also like how “no evidence” gets magically transmuted to “little evidence”. Can you teach me how to do that too? 😃
> [@](#):
>
> Kenyon was “pro-conquest”- not anti-Conquest, even tho her dig proved that the ruins of “Great Jericho” was NOT the City attacked by Joshua, as had been thought. Thus, as i said before- Infidels used her work out of context.
How so? Infidels said there was a flippin’ village there, _same as you said she did._ YOU, Daniel, claimed that Infidels said there was nothing there when Joshua got to it. You repeatedly said that the small village that Kenyon said (in your quote) was too early for Joshua in 1260BC was the one she claimed Joshua conqured. REPEATEDLY and VEHEMENTLY said that.
Let’s go back over this; you said:
> [@](#):
>
> The problem i found with the infidels site, is that they took Kenyons work that discredited the 1920s theory that the Paleolithic city was the jericho of legend, and extrapolated that to show that since A city of jericho was destroyed far too early-\*\* thereby there was NO town there, later to be destroyed. ie, Jericho ws never rebuilt after being destroyed that 1st time.\*\* …NO, I repeat NO Archeologists have even said or indicated this.
Infidels says:
> [@](#):
>
> Kenyon argued that Garstung had excavated the wrong wall and mistakenly thought that the Early Bronze Age foundations were instead the Late Bronze Age walls of the time of Joshua’s Conquest. Jericho was destroyed, not in the Late Bronze Age, but rather nine hundred years earlier in the Early Bronze Age sometime around 2400 BCE. **The site was a small village during the Late Bronze Age when Joshua was said to have crossed the Jordan River, making Tell es-Sultan’s conquest unnecessary…**
You were WRONG, dude. Just 'fess up and admit it, OK? I don’t think I even trust your reading of the “The Oxford History of the Ancient World”, either; you have an amazing ability to misread things, often citing thinsg to support you that actually hurt your argument. Apparently, now you are arguing that not only were you wrong about the Infidels site, but you were wrong about your vehement claims of Kenyon’s belief in Joshua’s conquest of the small Bronze age village. Why should I trust anything you say, when you can’t get your own sources correct?
> [@](#):
>
> Oxford has this to say about the site of Jericho: “Because of its ecologically advantageous setting, Tell es-Sultan in the Jericho oasis was rebuilt in succesive periods, although with some gaps in occupation”. True, this does not prove that Joshua did not stumble upon it during one of those gaps- but it does prove that Jericho was rebuilt many times after the destruction of “Great Jericho”- and thus there COULD have been a Jericho there for Joshua to attack.
What a load of horse-hockey. That quote says it was rebuilt many times. No shit, WE KNOW THAT. That does not prove that the late bronze age village was attacked by Joshua; saying there “could” have been a village there tells us nothing. We’re pretty sure there was a village there, it’s just that the village appears to have been destroyed 40 years before Joshua got there. If you want to say “well, there’s no evidence there was a city in 1260BC, but I believe it anyway because people sometimes rebuild cities,” fine, be my guest.
---
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/54 "2000-12-14T22:43:03Z")
[QUOTE]
\*Originally posted by Gaudere \*
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> OK- it is time for me to ask YOU to back THAT up-
:amused: Back up what? That the established archeologists I have seen pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems? Would you like a list of my links so that you can see that all the websites I have checked all have pretty much the same dates?\>1
“cities were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites were never abandoned” (wrong) “er, good city sites cities were never abandoned for long” \>2
) Now we’re supposed to believe you when you say that the Biblical authorities and Biblical archeologists are all wrong in their dating, and you have the right of it?\>3
> [@](#):
>
> As to Jericho & Kenyon. I quote: “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age city that Joshua captured”.\>3
> Infidels said there was a flippin’ village there, _same as you said she did._ YOU, Daniel, claimed that Infidels said there was nothing there when Joshua got to it. You repeatedly said that the small village that Kenyon said (in your quote) was too early for Joshua in 1260BC was the one she claimed Joshua conqured. REPEATEDLY and VEHEMENTLY said that. A city of jericho was destroyed far too early-\*\* thereby there was NO town there, later to be destroyedThe site was a small village during the Late Bronze Age when Joshua was said to have crossed the Jordan River, making Tell es-Sultan’s conquest unnecessary…\>4
>
> We’re pretty sure there was a village there, it’s just that the village appears to have been destroyed 40 years before Joshua got there.\>5 \*\*
\>1. Go ahead- show me that Archeologists, in general, accept the 1260 date, or similar dates for the Exodus/conquest as SOLID. I just went thru the Oxford History- they accept no such dates. Go back to that link I posted, and a quote you like of Kenyons: “In one fell swoop she proves the Biblical account of Joshua to be a myth, DISCOUNTS BOTH THE ACCEPTED XVIIIth & XIXth DYNASTY THEORIES FOR THE EXODUS…” (caps mine). ie, Kenyon did not accept EITHER of the 2 THEORIES which date the Exodus/Conquest. Note, the word “theories” and the 2 different DYNASTIES (which last for some time) which were 'accepted" by archeologists. Note also that Kenyon did NOT accept the “traditional"dating. Quotes for Oxford: “The archaeological data relating to the Exodus are subject to differing interpretations. But at no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai and palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus (or for that matter, conquest) account in the Bible”. Later; “Compromise and selectivity ar thus the keys to all hypotheses that have been advance to date the Exodus events. Most often these hypotheses correlate aspects of the biblical narrative with particular historical settings and events and selected archaeological evidence”… “None is entirely satisfactory from the point of view of critical historiography, archaeological evidence, or biblical testimony”. Later still: “Dates proposed for the Exodus range from the third millenium to the 11th centuries BCE”. Finally: " The 3rd and most widely accepted hypothesis places the Exodus in the 13th century BCE”. They go one & on as to the difficulty of dating the Exodus, and the varying theories, and why one may be better than the other. At no time do they posit an exact date, not even get closer than a century. I could (and will if nessesary) quote more, but then i would be running into copyright problems. Gaudere- face it- you are dead wrong- archeologists do not generally accept a given, solid year for the Exodus/conquest. Those “dates” are posited from Theological sources, not Archeologists.
\>2 I said 'vital" city sites are never permanently abandoned. Still stand by that.
\>3 Another quote from Kenyon, form that link I posted earlier: “…that almost all traces of the late bronze age town of the time of Joshua had been destroyed by erosion”. TOWN, TIME OF JOSHUA, ALMOST ALL. Note the other quote i give you, from Oxford “erosion had deprived history of the…City that Joshua captured.” It is very clear from these that Kenyon accepted that there was a “town” and that Joshua captured it- but that erosion had destroyed the evidence.
\>4 I did not, and do not accept infidels statement that Jericho was a “small village” about the time of Joshua. Kenyon repeatedly calls it a “TOWN”. Kenyon believed said town was taken by Joshua.
\>5 No, repeat NO date of the Conquest/Exodus has been pinned down to within 40 years- by archeologists. Theories abound. Estimates abound. Pottery shard & C-14 dating is not that accurate. Archeologists still cannot agree on which Pharaoh was the one of the Exodus.
---
### Author:  [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/55 "2000-12-14T22:54:47Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jab1 \*“There are no abandoned cities!”
>
> Have you ever heard of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico? It’s an old Anasazi settlement that’s very much unoccupied, I assure you. (I’ve been there myself. It’s a fuckin’ _National Monument!_) Then there’s Mesa Verde in Colorado and Canyon de Chelley in Arizona. _All abandoned._
> Did you know archaeologists used Space Shuttle photos to locate what appears to be the city of Ur, the city that gave us the word “urban”? Guess what: _IT’S ABANDONED!!_ In fact, it looks like there’s little left of it above the surface, but there may be remains buried deep beneath the sands. (Shades of Indiana Jones…) \*\*
You pissant. If you are going to attack my theory, at least quote mr correctly. I never said there are “no abandoned cities”, of course there are, lad. What I claimed was that “No VITAL site for a city is abandoned permanently”. If there is a good, sound reason for humns to live there- then humans WILL live there.
There are different theories of why the Anasazi abandoned their settlements- the most widely accepted being a drought & water shortage. Ie the site was no longer VITAL, oh mung- for-brains. Yes- Ur is “covered by sand”- gosh darn it, it is rather hard to live in a city covered with sand. The river shifted course, you maroon, leaving that site no longer VITAL.
---
### Author:  [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/56 "2000-12-14T23:42:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \>1. Go ahead- show me that Archeologists, in general, accept the 1260 date, or similar dates for the Exodus/conquest as SOLID.
Goodness gracious, I don’t have to. You said it yourself: “The 3rd and most widely accepted hypothesis places the Exodus in the 13th century BCE”. I never said anything like “precisely November 13, 1260 BC”. I said: archeologists “pretty much agree on similar sorts of dating systems”. Most of 'em fall in the 1260 range, as you yourself cite. I trust the archeologists more than I trust you. Hell, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing anymore; are you genuinely saying that all the Biblical archeologists are wrong, and YOU have the correct dating system?
> [@](#):
>
> archeologists do not generally accept a given, solid year for the Exodus/conquest. Those “dates” are posited from Theological sources, not Archeologists.
[from the site I linked to in my previous post] “…there is very little direct biblical evidence for a later 13th century date. **Most of the support comes from archaeological and historical evidence.** ”
> [@](#):
>
> \>2 I said 'vital" city sites are never permanently abandoned. Still stand by that.
So, are you claiming Jericho was such a vital site, and was therefore never abandoned permanently/for a long period of time? What makes a site ‘vital’? You can’t just say “well, if it was never abandoned permanently it is ‘vital’”; that’s circular logic. Not to mention, simply saying “no site has ever been permanently abandoned” _does not support your argument_ that there was someone in Jericho when Joshua ran across it; to argue that you’d have to argue that a “vital” city can never be abandoned at any point. Are you just posting this to give Collunsbury and Jab1 something to do?
> [@](#):
>
> Note the other quote i give you, from Oxford “erosion had deprived history of the… **City** that Joshua captured.” It is very clear from these that Kenyon accepted that there was a **“town”** and that Joshua captured it-
Ahem. You ever get tired of snipping quotes to make your case appear stronger than it actually does? Full quote: “Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, **thought** that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age **city** that Joshua captured…” What’s the rest of that sentence, by the way? Or the next three sentences? It’s hard to tell with no context; you know, it wouldn’t kill you to post a complete sentence once in a while when you’re quoting from I book I have no access to. Now, I must admit I’m confused. Town, City, Town, City, Walls, No Walls…What the hell are you claiming Kenyon thought Joshua “captured”?
> [@](#):
>
> Kenyon believed said **town** was taken by Joshua…
>
> Kathleen Kenyon, the British archaeologist who pioneered stratigraphic excavations at the site, thought that erosion had deprived hitory of the Late Bronze Age **city** that Joshua captured…
>
> “…that almost all traces of the late bronze age **town** of the time of Joshua had been destroyed by erosion”.
>
> It is very clear from these that Kenyon accepted that there was a **“town”** and that Joshua captured it- but that erosion had destroyed the evidence.
> [@](#):
>
> \>4 I did not, and do not accept infidels statement that Jericho was a “small village” about the time of Joshua.
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897&pagenumber=2)
DITWD states: “I postulated a smaller town, surviving in the ruins or the much greater former city. Thus, indeed, there WAS no “city” there, at that time- there was a 'town”, or **perhaps even a village** …I will leave you with these quotes from the books I have on hand- (Don’t know much About the Bible)= “In the 13th century BC, the likely date of entry of the israelites into Canaan, jericho was an **unfortifeid village**. In other words, the familar tale was most likely embroidered upon in later tellings”.
😃
---
### Author:  [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/57 "2000-12-14T23:51:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \*
> You pissant. If you are going to attack my theory, at least quote mr correctly. I never said there are “no abandoned cities”, of course there are, lad. What I claimed was that “No VITAL site for a city is abandoned permanently”. If there is a good, sound reason for humns to live there- then humans WILL live there.
Such vehemence. But your original claim was vague and implied … Well as Gaudere notes your logic, such as it is, is circular. You’re using abandoment as proof of non-vitality, while ignoring interruptions etc. As such, your statement is at best, and I do stress best, analytically meaningless.
This is almost, I say almost, as bad as arguing with that clueless rude fuck peace --who might drive me into wasting hours on a comparative chart of hla frequencies by region. Worht it? Probably not come to think of it.
> [@](#):
>
> Ie the site was no longer VITAL, oh mung- for-brains. Yes- Ur is “covered by sand”- gosh darn it, it is rather hard to live in a city covered with sand. The river shifted course, you maroon, leaving that site no longer VITAL.
Before getting into name calling you might reflect on the illogic of your argument.
---
### Author:  [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/58 "2000-12-14T23:54:13Z")
However, **DanielintheWEASELSden** , you are WRONG about Jericho, according to the article in the [Encyclopedia Britannica:](http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,44537+1+43547,00.html)
> [@](#):
>
> one of the main objectives has been to establish the date of the town’s destruction by the Israelites – a matter of importance for the chronology of the Israelite entry into Canaan. **Evidence of this destruction was thought to have been found but has proved to be erroneous.** Most of the town of the period, including the whole circuit of the town walls, has been removed by erosion; enough survives to show only that there was a town of the period. **This may have been destroyed in the second half of the 14th century BC, but evidence is too scanty for precision.**
Here’s the most damaging quote of all:
> [@](#):
>
> **The site was then ABANDONED until the Iron Age.** Little trace has been found of the 9th-century-bc\* occupation attributed to Hiel, but there was a sizable settlement in the 7th century BC, ending perhaps at the time of the second Babylonian Exile in 586 BC. **The site was then finally abandoned, and the later Jerichos grew up elsewhere.**
Other interesting tidbits:
1. In 8,000 BC, the population was between 2,000 and 3,000.
2. Not only did they have agriculture, it was _irrigated_ agriculture.
3. For 1,000 years, between 6,000 BC and 5,000 BC, **“there is little evidence of occupation at Jericho.”** (So, Jericho looks to have been abandoned at least TWICE.) “Over the next 2,000 years, occupation was sparse and possibly intermittent.” So, it looks as though that Jericho, while one of the oldest settlements in all of history, it has NOT been occupied _ **CONTINUOUSLY.** _
4. Modern Jericho exists about a mile east of the Old Testament site.
Here’s the part you’re gonna hate, **Daniel** , old boy: The article in question was originally written by…
_ **DAME KATHLEEN MARY KENYON!** _ (At the bottom of the article is the link (K.M.K.). Click on that, and tells you who the author was. Next to that is (Ed.), meaning it was edited.)
Do you have anything to say?
\*I find it rather interesting that Jericho apparently dates back to 9000 BC, because the Young-Earth Creationists insist the Earth itself is only 6,000 years old! (No, **Daniel** , I’m not saying you are a YEC.)
---
### Author:  [@InkBlot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InkBlot)
#### Post date: [December 14, 2000, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/59 "2000-12-14T23:57:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Gaudere_
> **Your habit of not backing up what you say can be quite tiresome. [Remember when you argued that the Internet Infidels site quoted out of context](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=47897)? I ask for some evidence. You say Kenyon is quoted out of context there, and that she believed Joshua conquered Jericho. I take you at your word, and ask for a cite showing that she believed in the Jericho conquest.**
OK, I went and read the original thread. I didn’t even try to reconcile all the dates in my head, it makes my brain hurt. I am trying to understand something here, and am having trouble. Your part in that thread (and now dragged against your will out here) revolved mostly around the quote above. I looked back over Daniel’s posts from when he first mentioned Kenyon, and I can’t see a point where he actually says she believed in Joshua conquering Jericho. All I can see is his struggle to keep the _possibility_ open. The closest thing to it I can see was this:
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden_
> **She clearly admits there were later, lesser Jerichos, and the destruction of one of them “could” fit in with the Bible passage.**
Which can be taken to mean that the entire statement is paraphrasing her. I don’t think that’s what Daniel meant, I think the first half was Kenyon, and “the destruction…” side of the sentance was entirely Daniel’s. Bolstered, in part, by the next sentance:
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden_
> **However, her work did not study the “other” Jerichos, _thus she evinces no opinions._**
Emphasis mine.
**Daniel** , I think the point everyone here is trying to get across to you (and I believe it’s a valid one) is that your not communicating yourself very well. You’re mixing your cites and your own comments so closely together it’s difficult to tell them apart, and it’s destroying your credibility. Kind of reminds me of the student who constructs an entire report out of encyclopedia quotes. One the one hand it does contain an original thought on behalf of the student, on the other hand it’s all made up of factual information, but the combination of fact and opinion without any buffer results in the message getting lost.
_deep breath_
I hope that’s all clear to all of you, because I don’t see the current direction of this thread as being fruitful in the near future. Daniel believes he’s debating correctly, using cites to back up his opinions. Everyone else\* is getting frustrated because they’e having difficulty in picking out the facts from his opinion.
Of course, my favorite quote so far is still, “How was _I_ supposed to know you misinterpreted me?” But then I always was a warped child.
InkBlot
\*for significantly high values of “everyone”
---
### Author:  [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)
#### Post date: [December 15, 2000, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276/60 "2000-12-15T00:36:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gaudere \*
> **Goodness gracious, I don’t have to. You (Daniel) said it yourself: “The 3rd and most widely accepted hypothesis places the Exodus in the 13th century BCE”.**
Well, well, well. Even that must be wrong. I looked at EB’s biographical entry for Kenyon and found this:
> [@](#):
>
> Though her chief interests lay in determining the dates of its initial settlement (8th millennium BC)and its destruction by Joshua and the Israelites **(_c._ 1425 BC)** she accomplished much more.
So if the Exodus happened in the 13th century BC and the conquest of Jericho happened in the **15th** century BC, that would mean the Israelites conquered Jericho 200 years BEFORE they left Egypt. (Remember, when counting centuries BC, one must count _ **backwards.** _) Now, that’s a miracle for you. God must’ve given them a time machine or somethin’.
However, the EB ALSO makes these same mistakes. As I quoted above, in the Jericho entry, it says Jericho was destroyed in the second half of the 14th century BC (1350 BC or later). But in the Kenyon entry, it gives the date as “_c._ 1425 BC,” at least 75 years earlier. And yet, in the Exodus entry, it says the Exodus happened in the 12th century BC. Should we notify the EB about their mistakes?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bite-my-sweet-atheist-fact-checking-bible-reading-ass-danielinthewolvesden/45276.md?page=4)