Posts by LorenzoSmithXVII

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Crazyguy6 hours agoYour giving the writings in the bible way to much credibility. Your saying in that the Noah story written roughly 500 bc is more accurate then the two or three that came a thousand years or more before it which would put these stories closer to Noah. So Noah tells his story to his offspring they get it wrong for a thousand years or more then all of a sudden at about 500 bc a Jewish writer gets is right somehow. Yet these same Jewish writers state that god created the vegetation before the Sun and made several more discrepancies in the creation story. And lets not forget how imposable the Noah's story is with millions of different animals and insects etc on a 450-500 foot boat for a year where one would need to store up over 500 tons of food just for the elephants alone.
I need to go smoke a joint or something so I can get on your wave length or something before we can continue with this conversation.

Let me just say in passing, that your reading of the scriptures is not the same as mine, so I can't address your reaction to your reading, only your reaction to my reading. Case in point, the Bible clearly says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That means the Earth and Sun had already been created. The earth clearly was already in existence but was simply dark and formless.

So when God said, "let there be light" its in the context of light being brought to the surface of the earth. That is, my interpretation is that Jehovah chose the planet earth, then chose the Sun and then brought the Earth in proximity to this particular sun to create light on the surface. So your idea that vegetation was created before the Sun was is not my reading. I believe you're legitimately overwhelmed by what you see as extreme contradictions to reality, but others of us interpret the specifics differently and so don't have the issues you do. Not that you are not entitled to those issues. It's just that interpretation sometimes makes all the difference in the world.

But I acknowledge that the way you interpret the reading, I understand your objections, but the way I read and interpret it, I don't have those objections.

This boils down to your wondering how I come to a different response or conclusion than you do, and that lies in the fact that I don't interpret the reading the same as you. All I can offer is to share how I'm interpreting it, while acknowledging that's my personal choice, while respecting your interpretation.

So critically, the "six days of CREATION" are clearly a misconception. The Earth and the Sun and universe were not created in just six days, 7000 years each. A better term would be the "Six Days of CONVERSION," that is, converting a dark, formless and watery planet into the beautiful bioshpere we now experience. To do that, it needed heat and light. So God moved it closer to the Sun. Same with the rest of the solar system. I interpret the creation of the other planets are not being created during those six days of 42,000 years, but already have been in existence someplace in the universe and God bringing those planets together to ASSEMBLE the solar system. Even our Moon was already out there some place long before God put it into the Earth's orbit.

That's why the Bible itself has no problem with the Earth being as old as it needs to be. The planet itself is very old. It is only life on this planet that is relatively new.

So understanding the Bible or at least considering various interpretations of the Bible rather than just our own helps us understand why some of us still find it easy to accept the Bible as a book of truth. But others misread the Bible and invent things the Bible doesn't say and then find fault with their own errors.

So one reason why people don't see "eye to eye" is because we're not interpreting the Bible the same way. You're responding to your personal interpretation and I'm responding to mind. If they are different, then we will have different reactions.

The "Six Days of CREATION" should be renamed the "Six Days of CONVERSION," which is a more accurate reflection of what actually happened in those six days to an earth that was already billions of years old.

For sure, the Bible is not a book that can be casually read. You have to pay attention to specifics.

25

An interesting theory on Stephen Lett

by joe134cd in

interesting theory i thought on stephen lett.

if anything i would of thought tomo3 would of caused them more grief with his comments.. http://insidethewatchtower.com/governing-body/stephen-lett-dumped-from-governing-body/.

LorenzoSmithXVII

I went to YouTube and watched to see what people are talking about. I don't find him to be overly objectionable. He doesn't disturb me that much.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Getting back to Genesis 3:15, I have a problem with the assignment of "the woman" as Jehovah's wife. That's because, generally speaking, we can understand the concept of the angelic population in heaven being like Jehovah's wife. But what about Satan? For "the woman" to be Jehovah's wife, you have to define that wife as just the faithful angels. But that leaves out who represents Satan and the 1/3rd rebel angels? Do they make another wife of Jehovah? The unfaithful wife? Since you have to exclude Satan and 1/3 of the angels from Jehovah's "wife" that woman being Jehovah's wife doesn't work for me.

Instead, again, I see this as establishing the enmity and division between Christ and his seed and Satan and his seed, only in the context of Eden, Satan is called "the woman" since she functioned as the wife of Christ in heaven up until now, and will be replaced by the 144,000 as Christ's new, but replacement wife.

This special connection between Christ and his wife and Mount Zion is reflected by the emblems in the Most Holy between the two covering cherubs whose wings cover the top of the ark. Satan is identified as one of these "covering cherubs" who had to be cast out of Mount Zion. Ezekiel 28:14:

"

…13"You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14"You were the anointed CHERUB WHO COVERS, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15"You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you."

Satan is called the "cherub that covers." This is a reference to one of the two cherubs whose wing covers the top of the ark of the covenant, representing Mount Zion. We know these are not simply symbolic angels because on the curtains the images of the cherubs are alternating between a cherub with the face of a man, representing Jesus Christ and a palm tree figure, which is a feminine figure and thus the lesser angel.

Further, Christ is represented on the breastplate of the high priest by 12 stones. Satan by only nine stones; another indication that these are two specific angels in heaven with a special relationship in regards to God's holiness on Mount Zion, a position we note becomes that of Christ's bride.

So if the two cherubs in this special relationship is considered to be husband and wife, then we know Satan was the original wife of Jesus who sinned against him. In Eden, Satan became the "pattern" for Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. So when God pronounces: "I will put enmity between YOU and the WOMAN and between your seed and her seed" he is addressing Jesus Christ and noting that Satan will be cast out of Mount Zion and they would be allowed to oppose each other for a period of time, during which time Satan would bruise Christ in the heal by causing his death as a human, but Christ would crush the head of Satan, which is a fatal blow, when he casts Satan into the lake of fire after the 1000 year reign.

Now this is just background of why some have the interpretation that "the woman and her seed" represents Satan and his/her angelic followers. But having noted that, even Christian artwork frequently represents Satan as being a female, half woman and half snake. Thus the concept that Satan plays a feminine role persists in esoteric pagan and Christian tradition. Thus if we asked where did the concept that Satan was a snake and a woman come from, you can point to the Bible. Satan is depicted as both a woman and a snake in the Bible.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Crazyguy3 hours agoI would say in your last response to me that If Solomon did exist he was an Egyptian king and not a Jewish one. The Egyptians ruled the Levant during either timeline you chose and there is plenty of evidence that some of the cities mentioned in the bible and surmised to be in the Levant were and are actually in Egypt. So again if Solomon was and Egyptian King which is more plausible in my opinion then where does that leave the Jews? Still just a small back water loose coalition of peoples living in Judea an area unable to support the kind of population needed back then to do anything that the Jews claimed David and his Son Solomon did.

Very interesting. I haven't come across this concept before.

In archaeology, a focus is on the similar gates at Gezer, Hazor and Meggido, specifically mentioned as places where Solomon built. In fact, they call these gates the "Solomonic" gates. I suppose not everything in archaeology is not always in black and white. But I'd question your position because of Shishak. Shishak invaded the region, an account recorded in the Bible, and he mentioned many of the cities found in the Bible, including Megiddo. That destructive level is very distinct at several cities specifically mentioned by Shishak. So are you saying Shishak attacked someone other than the Israelites?

Ultimately, the Israelites are confirmed by the pagan records of Moab (Mesha stele) and Assyria (Shalmaneser III). Of course, the earliest reference to the Israelites as a people was by Mereneptah. So I just don't see where a valid claim comes from that the Israelites did not have a powerful kingdom by the early 9th Century BC, which is where Israel Finkelstein confirms the great building works attributed to Solomon were built. Of course, the dated destructive level by Shishak is also dated to the early 9th Century. So there is much harmony as far as the relative chronology for this event in relation to the Bible.

Thanks for sharing your reference. I didn't realize it was so difficult to acknowledge Solomon as a real king based on archaeology. Shishak attacked Israel near the very end of Solomon's rule.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Another issue is how some thing the Bible myths or stories are based on similar Sumerian myths and stories, because the Sumerians came before the Israelites. However, I would suggest that Noah is the common thread between these similar myths. All the peoples found out about Eden through Noah and so developed their own versions of the events in Eden or the angels coming down from heaven to marry the daughters of men. Thus you find elements of the Bible stories among the pagans.

Even concepts like the "woman and her seed" are seen in pagan goddesses who hold a branch or a seed, like the constellation of Virgo. So yes, the constellation of Virgo holding a branch is based on a paganistic concept of Satan as the woman and her rebellion by the fallen angels. Thus Virgo is a version of the "woman and her seed." But does that mean the story in the Bible was influenced by the pagan myth? Or was the pagan myth based on the story of Eden handed down by Noah?

Point being, when you find very similar characters or stories, you want to link them together. One presumption is one is a derivative of the other. That's possible. But another possibility is that the stories are two versions of a common original story. In this case, the historical details handed down by Noah.

What is ironic is that the pagan concept of Satan being a Mother Goddess is more consistent with the Bible's description of Satan as a "woman" in Genesis. That is, the "woman and her seed" who would be opposed to God was understood by the pagans to be a virgin mother goddess. Whereas in general, Christians don't think of Satan was being a "woman" though they see the Bible describes Satan as the most gloriously beautiful angel in heaven and the Bible says it was Satan's great beauty that corrupted him/her. Many Christians see Jesus getting married to the church, the 144,000 in the case of JWs, but it doesn't dawn on them that this "new Jerusalem" is replacing his former wife, a position held in heaven by none other than Satan. But pagan concepts of gods in heaven often include goddesses.

Once you understand the esoteric pagan and occult references to Satan, then you realize that the "woman and her seed" of Genesis 3:15 is a reference to Satan and the fallen angels and you understand the concept of a mother goddess like VIRGO, the virgin mother goddess. She holds a branch which represents her "seed" or her following. She is considered a "virgin" because her children were born in opposition to her husband. That is, it was not by the consent that she inherited these children. These are children stolen from her husband and thus they emphasize that she is a "virgin," meaning basically that her children are adopted.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Phizzy3 hours agoLorenzo lost credibility with me when he started an Ad Hominem attack on Finkelstein. Come up with some Archaeological evidence that shows Finkelstein to be wrong, then come back here.

Well, I'm not that anxious to get into a tit-for-tat with you, but whether or not I lost credibility has to do with whether or not I know more about Bible history and archaeology than you do. Your position is unfounded unless you are more specific. But perhaps I should begin by being a little bit more specific myself.

Israel Finkelstein as an archaeologist, is brilliant. He knows his stuff and is opinated. I totally respect his archaeological expertise. But as a Bible historian, he lacks quite a bit of expertise. But no matter since that is not his field.

His expertise is digging up Megiddo and informing the world that the Solomonic level buildings belong to the "early 9th century BC," which he does. That's it. Now he qualifies himself when adding something further, which is his opinion. That is, he first qualifies the timeline he uses by saying this is the timeline most historians believe is accurate and definitive. Then establishing that for this particular timeline, he notes how Solomon is dated to the mid 10th Century and thus mismatch when the buildings attributed to him are built. Now it this point, Finkelstein has basically two choices: 1) He can date Solomon to the early 9th Century, or 2) He can claim Solomon is a myth. He chooses the latter, which is his preference, but that is a historical statement, not an archaeological one.

Now this is why I think Finkelstein is a phony. The timeline he uses to date Solomon dates the Exodus to 1446 BCE. But he doesn't make archaeological comparisons of 1446 BCE for the Exodus and then draws a conclusion based on that. Instead, he decides to date the Exodus during the time of Rameses II and then find fault with that dating based on the fall of Jericho, noting that Jericho was not inhabited during the time of Rameses II. But it was inhabited in 1446 BCE. Point being, Israel Finkelstein uses one timeline to date the Exodus and another one to date Solomon. So he is not consistent at all.

Now Finkelstein will be the first to criticize what "Biblical archaeology" is, that is, archaeologists with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other.

What this basically forces researchers to do is just to ignore the anti-Christian and anti-Biblical rhetoric, and just use his raw archaeological findings. The result is that Finkelstein is a brilliant archaeologist but a biased and incompetent Biblical historian, perhaps even dishonest.

Now that's my personal opinion about him and I'm more than happy to be specific in that regard. The issue is that apparently Israel Finkelstein is a Jew trying to discredit Jesus by using archaeology. But is he doing it in a non-biased way? That's my issue.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

LorenzoSmithXVII its great to have another to post her on this forum welcome, but I have to disagree with you on this idea that Solomon did exist and Finkelstien doesn't know what he's talking about. More then one archeologist believes the building's at Gezer, Megiddo etc. were built by Egyptians and not Solomon. Virtually nothing of Solomon's has ever been found, not his gold minds or his temple, nothing. Even his timeline conflicts with known timelines of the Egyptians kings and their ruler ship over the area known and Canaan.

Feel free to disagree. But your point is a nonspecific issue. Case in point, the Bible itself says that others were used to build at Jerusalem. The kingdom of Solomon was very close to that of the Egyptians, in fact, he had an Egyptian princess for a wife. So if the Egyptians assisted in building in the Levant, so what?

My only point is this. Was there ever a time in Israel that matched the time of Solomon? The answer yes. Israel Finkelstein says a period of "full statehood" and "monumental buildings" worthy of Solomon did exist in the early 9th century. At this point, without further reference, though, the archaeological evidence does not find contradiction as in the case often brought up that there is absolutely no evidence of a 40-year trek of the Israelites in Sinai.

So there is a difference between absolutely no evidence or conflicting evidence versus timeline issues. After all, Jehovah's Witnesses date everything in this period some 67 years earlier than the dating by the pagans. That's a discussion point. The popular dating dates Solomon from 970-930 BCE. The buildings normally associated with Solomon and evidence of full statehood and a wealthy empire are dated by archaeologists to the "early 9th century BC." So they find a conflict of half a century, sufficient enough for someone like Finkelstein to claim Solomon must have been made up by the postexilic Jews. But think of what Finkelstein would say if someone were saying Solomon lived even earlier than that? Per JWs, though, Solomon's rule begins in 1037 BC and David's rule in 1077 BC.

People debate who built this magnificent structures. Some say Omri, others the Egyptians? I'm though, first noting that the buildings do exist and a period of great wealth existed as well that match what the Bible said about Solomon. Obviously, one solution is simply to date Solomon to where the buildings are dated, to the early 9th Century BC. What's wrong with that presumption? In fact, academically, that should be a consideration. If the buildings don't match the timeline, then maybe something is wrong with the timeline. Has anyone thought about that? Finkelstein didn't. Actually, he did! His position is that the Neo-Babylonian dating is so absolute that he believes the timeline is reliable, to reliable to try to date Solomon and David a half century later to match the archaeology. But that is HIS problem. He's an archaeologist. The only thing we need from him is when to date these buildings. Chronology issues and timeline issues are disciplines outside of his expertise. I don't need a Jewish archaeologist trying to interpret the Bible for me and telling me that if Solomon was a myth then Jesus must be a myth or surmising that the Bible provides good social benefits but no real historical reality. That opinion has nothing to do with archaeology. So he is a great archaeologist, but a lousy Bible historian. That's why I separate the two.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Crazyguy3 hours agoI think Genesis 3:15 may have something to do with the battle between Tiamat and Marduk. Tiamat is a woman creator mother of all goddess and she has her followers. Marduk is the god that is going to do battle with her and he of course has the other gods on his side. Satan is the representation of the adversary of Enlil the sky god. Satan is actually Enki, Enlil's half brother. Its Enlil that later wants to kill all mankind and Enki who warns Noah and tells him to build a boat.
Almost all the stories in Genesis are taken from older Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian stories.

I won't speak about the specific gods you mentioned, but the constellation of VIRGO, a woman holding a branch, is a representation of the "woman and her seed." The branch represents her lineage or seed. Thus Isis, Ishtar and lots of other female deities are directly linked to "Lillith" or Satan as a woman in Eden. But presuming these distorted stories loosely based on what happened in Eden can be explained as easily by a common origin as much as being based on each other. That is, the story of Eden came down to everyone through Noah and the Jewish version simply is the most accurate with other nations developing their own variations. So yes, I agree, the story is the same story, but the Jews got their version directly from Noah as did the Sumerians. In Eden, Satan is a woman and it is on her that many pagan mother goddesses are based.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

Lieu20 minutes agoLorenzo, me thinks you have that reversed.
It's the woman's seed that crushes the head while the serpent's seed goes after the heels. The woman is not Satan, nor an analogy of him.
He's talking to "the serpent" in verse 14, 15, (ie "thy & thou").
Genesis 3:13-15 KJVS
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
[14] And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Actually, I understand there are various interpretations, the one I shared was just one of them, based on the invisible presence of both Satan and Christ. Now most, even JWs, presume Satan was invisibly present since it is clear God is addressing Satan about being bruised in the head by "he." Now as you said, you believe the the entity that crushes the head of the serpent, meaning Satan, is the woman's seed. Based on the interpretation I shared though, the invisible presence of both Satan and Jesus Christ are addressed. Thus God says something to each of the five principals involved: Adam, Eve, the snake, Satan and Jesus Christ. As follows:

1) To Adam: He said the ground would be cursed, etc.

2) To Eve: You will have birth pangs and lust after your husband, etc.

3) To the actual serpent: [14] And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

4) To Jesus Christ, the husband: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and [your] woman, and between thy seed and her seed;

5) To Satan, the woman, married to Christ: HE shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In fulfillment, Satan kills Jesus Christ when he become human, but that is a temporary wound as Jesus is resurrected. After the 1000-year reign, though, Christ casts Satan into the lake of fire where there is no resurrection, permanently killing him/her and his/her respective seed.

Again, the big difference is acknowledging the invisible presence of Christ here, who is noted and who we know will bruise Satan in the head. Does God say anything to him? The only faithful entity out of these five? If so, it is the statement that: "I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed." That is, there will be a competition between Christ and Satan and their respective followers. That is played out in Revelation where we see Michael the archangel battling with the dragon and her seed.

Again, I understand it is astounding to think of Satan as being female, though we know the angels are androgynous. Even so, when God said, "Let us make man in our image... male and female" that likely had a reference to the "role" of wife Satan had with Jesus Christ in the beginning. On that note, though, is it so incredible to think that the church who becomes Christ's wife in heaven isn't directly replacing someone in that former role? And when we investigate, whom do we find in that favored position on Holy Mount Zion? It is Satan, the most beautiful angel in all of heaven. If Christ had a previous wife, wouldn't it have been the most beautiful angel in all of heaven?

Bottom line is, there are two "covering cherubs" that hold a special position of holiness above the ark of the covenant, which represents holy Mount Zion. These are specific angels. One is depicted on the curtains in the temple as a palm tree, a feminine figure. The other as a cherub with the face of a man, which is always a reference to Jesus Christ. So the two angels here were original Michael and Satan. But Satan rebelled and was cast out. Satan's position in relation to Christ, though on Mount Zion apparently was his special companion, his wife, and thus is called the "woman" in the setting in Eden. That old wife is replaced with a new wife, New Jerusalem, Christ's new wife made up of some chosen ones from among mankind.

but I certainly can see how those reading the text and perhaps not presuming Satan was invisibly present or Jesus and thus not being addressed, that an interpretation that the woman's seed is what crushes the head of the serpent and thus the woman was seen as a good entity on God's side. It is not difficult to think God is talking to Satan when he says I will put enmity between YOU and the woman, instead of God addressing Jesus Christ.

But I'm just sharing this interpretation. "Interpretation belongs to God."

Thanks for sharing.

31

Bible History

by bitsnbobs in

hi all,i left the org in the late 90s.

not because of beliefs or the 1914/generation fiasco.

just thoughtlessness, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

LorenzoSmithXVII

And one of the best book I never read about how the bible is "born" is this one : The Bible unearthed by Israel Finkelstein.

Israel Finkelstein is a prime example of a Jewish historical anti-Bible propagandist. The problem here is that the Jews have always had their own timeline. That is, there is a rabbinical timeline that claims the Persian Period was artificially expanded by some 164 years. Case in point, the completion of the second temple in the 6th year of Darius I is dated by the rabbinical Jews to 352 BCE. The popular timeline dates that event to 516 BCE. (516 - 352 = 164).
But that's the fundamental problem. There is more than one theoretical Biblical timeline. The conclusions archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein come to are slanted toward just one timeline of comparison, giving negative results. But as someone else said, you have to take off the spectacles of bias by either JWs or archaeologists when it comes to Bible history. Here's an example.
Israel Finkelstein claims that Solomon is a myth and, therefore, that Jesus must be a myth since he is called the "greater Solomon." But who asked him? He's an archaeologist. All we need from him is his best dating of some artifacts. We don't need his Jewish-based Bible commentary, right? But that's his right to express his opinion as a "historian" as long as you separate that historical opinion from the archaeology. Note what happens when you do.
The Bible says there was a time of great wealth and building during the reign of Solomon. The question is, have archaeologists found any building works worthy of Solomon in that region? The answer is: Yes! Great monumental buildings at Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor, in particular were found and attributed to the great period of Solomon. So the actual archaeology confirms a time of great wealth, confirming Solomon. That is in contrast with no great works worthy of Solomon being found.
So what's the problem? Why is Finkelstein claiming Solomon is a myth? It is solely based on his personal choice of a timeline for comparison. He uses the secular timeline dating Solomon from 970-930 BCE. The great works found by archaeologists, though, occur later during the "early 9th Century (900-867 BCE). Because Solomon appears in this particular timeline too early, Finkelstein calls Solomon a myth. But this is not an archaeological assessment, but a historical one. That is, all we need to hear from Finkelstein is that (1) yes, there are great works found worthy of Solomon, and (2) that those great works were found in the early 9th Century. That's the archaeological reference. His theory that Omri built these buildings and not Solomon has to do with his choice of a timeline. So he is misrepresenting the evidence supporting the Bible. Israel Finkelstein is thus not to be trusted since from a strict archaeological point of view, all Finkelstein discovered was not that Solomon did not exist, but that he existed at a later period of time. Finkelstein had the option to claim that Solomon was a myth based on the current timeline, or that Solomon is misdated a half century too early. But you don't hear Finkelstein making that assessment. Rather he promotes the Bible is inaccurate and that Solomon is a mythical character invented by postexilic Jews for the emotional well being of the people at that time, which is not archaeology but anti-Biblical propaganda.
So you see, archaeology confirms Solomon did exist, but the archaeologists is saying he didn't. Israel Finkelstein is either stupid or dishonest. Or I should say, has his own agenda. But since he is Jewish and thus has a religious obligation to deny Christ, you can't remove that bias from his discussions in the field. So as I said, you have to separate the archaeology from the archaeologist-historian. After you do that, you can then come up with your own conclusions. When you do that, every major character and event, including the Exodus gets a confirmation which those with their own timeline and agendas are blinded to.
Case in point with JWs. JWs date the Exodus to 1513 BCE. The fall of Jericho by Joshua according to archaeologists occurred between 1350-1325 BCE. That means the Exodus would have occurred 40 years earlier between 1390-1365 BCE. So the JW date compared to archaeology is over 100 years too early. The secular date for the Exodus in 1446 BCE is about 60 years too early. But does that mean the Exodus never happened. Of course not. The fall of Jericho confirms the Bible historical record. The only problem is WHEN the Exodus occurred. The period of 1390-1365 BCE confirms the Exodus, indeed occurred at this time, because this is the Amarna Period, the period of Akhenaten, who suddenly became a monotheist and started to depress all the other gods of Egypt. That is, after the 10 plagues, the next pharaoh converted to worshipping Yahweh in the form of Aten, a monotheistic god. The Israelites, by contrast with everybody else back then, were also monotheists. So in reality, you have an archaeological confirmation of the impact of the 10 plagues on the land of Egypt, which is, the entire land converted to monotheism.
So per archaeology, the Exodus as well as the fall of Jericho have arcaheological confirmations, but you don't get to that point going through either the WTS or Jewish or other so-called "Biblical archaeologists." Since it is not reasonable to think that the experts in the field with all this interest and information are so incredibly dumb, there is no other conclusion but to conclude they have agenda greater than truth. One of those agendas apparently is to suppress any connection between the Exodus and Akhenaten, who confirms the Exodus actually occurred by converting to monotheism.
So if you are truly interested in Bible history, you have to get ready for the biases, since you are diving into treacherous waters. The Bible is truly reliable history, supported by lots of archaeology, but all that is distorted by people like the WTS and Jewish historians and others who have their own agendas. Once you separate those biases, though, then many things in the Bible are amazingly confirmed by what has been found by archaeology.
The best way to approach Bible history, therefore, is with much caution and skeptism of those with an agenda. The general concept, therefore, is that archaeologists and Jewish archaeologists in particular know quite well when the Exodus actually happened at the time of Akhenaten, but have a conflict of interest to share that with the world at this time. If they tell the truth about the Exodus, it will expose all the other lies they are telling. The easy way out is to keep the world in the dark like the WTS likes to keep its members in the dark. Avoid discussions. Call anyone who disagrees with you crazy.
In the meantime, the Bible is indeed a reliable book of history. In the meantime, science that supports the Bible's reliable history is being suppressed by those writing books in the field and so the Bible has a bad reputation because of them. Israel Finkelstein is by far the most abusive. But maybe he likes selling books. ?? Everyone is entitled to make a living.