Is that the best you can do?
Your source did not support your assertion. That you continue to rely upon it demonstrates willful ignorance and a complete disregard for reason. That you continue to rely on it after it has been pointed out that your authority changed his position later [sub](I have to assume later, since you have yet again failed to provide any contextual information for your quote)[/sub] demonstrates that you subjugate honesty to certainty.
How impressive.
Uh, but what about Gaudere’s request that you address some of the other II essays? I mean, if II is so bad, then surely you can talk about something other than the Kenyon essay you keep bringing up, right?
-Ben
I think most impressive of all is this:
He says that the II’s misrepresent Kenyon.
He describes what he thinks Kenyon’s ideas about Jericho are.
Gaudere points out that the II’s attribute to Kenyon precisely the same opinion that DITWD himself does.
DITWD complains that the real problem in this thread is that Spiritus Mundi et al. are too narrow-minded about accepting his cites.
I mean, any question about what archaeologists say about Jericho or the Flood or anything else is now totally and absolutely moot. The fact is, DITWD claimed that the II’s said something that they simply did not say! The only relevant cite here is the II essay, and the only relevant issue at this point is what they said about Kenyon!
Look, Daniel, you keep calling me a weasel, but think of it: you effectively stand accused of committing a serious hypocrisy dripping in a suffocating coat of irony, and you act like nothing has happened!
-Ben
DITWD has tried to move this discussion partly to the “Books for fundies” thread, where it is not in the slightest bit germane. I’m moving it back here. You’ll have to excuse the extraneous bits about “sheepskin,” which come from DITWD trying to argue that fundies are just as knowledgeable as non-fundies, despite being less well formally educated. I’ve left it in, in order that DITWD can have his entire say, rather than have me end up replying to disconnected bits of his post in a different forum from the one he posted them in.
**
The two key points here, of course, are:
It’s not a question of cites, DITWD, it’s a question of what the Infidels really said. They didn’t say what you claimed they said, and no amount of digging for cites is going to change that fact. Why can’t you just admit that you were wrong, and that the essay in question doesn’t take Kenyon out of context? If the Infidels are so chronically unable to tell the truth, why not just move on to a different essay where you could more easily prove that they are distorting the facts? I think that proving that ten, or five, or even two Infidels essays are false would help people overlook the one essay that you got wrong.
I somehow doubt that “everyone agreed” that the Infidels site is biased, unless you define “bias” to mean that the Infidels are trying to promote a particular point of view. By that token, you yourself are just as biased. The real question is, are the Infidels unreliable? As far as I can see, you are the only person who holds that view in this thread.
-Ben
A truly fascinating zombie thread, which seemed to get hijacked on historicity of the Bible. Any events in other, ideally non Abrahamic traditions whichnhave been confirmed? Mahabhrata or Zorestranism.
BTW, I thought the fact that Cyrus existed was always known from sources other the Bible. Ditto ArtXerxes and Nebucannezzer.
Yes, multiple sources, including Herodotus and via secondary sources at least Ctesias of Cnidus. Plus we have archaeological evidence via the Cyrus Cylinder.
Ditto them, as well. Ctesias again and the lost ( but known through secondary or tertiary sources ) works of Berosus. And again I believe their are archaeological fragments surviving from their times that name them.
I think the statement that AK84 was responding to was that those figures were known for a long time only from the Old Testament, and it was only later when archaeology found references to them from other sources. That sounded odd to me too.
However, getting information from this thread is a lot like archaeology.
Cyrus the Great? No, he’s a major figure well-known from all ancient histories–most significantly of course from the “father of history”, Herodotus (as Tamerlane has said). He was well-known, as is only proper, considering his role in putting together an empire that spanned much of the known world at the time … the more obscure figures are the Israelite kings. Most of what is known about them, comes from the OT - only recently has archaeology (somewhat tangentally) confirmed even the existence of King David, by a reference to (I believe) his grandson in a contemporary inscription.
Okay, that gave me a moment’s pause! 
It would be even stranger if I meant the medieval Mongol warlord.