history linguistics mythology palaeontology physics psychology religion Uniformitarianism
© 2001-2004 Catastrophism.com
|Sign-up | Log-in|
Introduction | Publications | More
Search results for: bible in all categories
839 results found.
84 pages of results.
101. Untitled [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... "scholarly" argument is pitiful. Mr. Cardona has no evidence in his support for his position except for his personal mis-translation of a Hebrew word, when he does not read Hebrew. Mr. Cardona claims that my position that the Cities of the Plain are buried beneath the floor of the Dead Sea "is not so stated in Genesis or anywhere else in the Old Testament. Nor, to my knowledge, is it so stated anywhere in extra or non-biblical sources. In fact, my claim is supported by the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and extra-biblical sources. Genesis 14:3 expressly states that the Vale of Siddim, where the Cities of the Plain were located "IS the salt sea" (at the time the account was written or edited). Furthermore, the Genesis account claims that Abraham and Lot looked over Sodom and Gomorrah from the site of Bethel in Samaria, 10 miles north of Jerusalem. (Gen. 13:10) Only the northern region of the Dead Sea is visible from there. The southern portion of ...
102. Forum [SIS C&C Review $]
... Bimson clarified as much as is possible in his earlier paper [1. Damien Mackey may think he's found something worthwhile but he ignores facts that cannot be overlooked and introduces extra complications in what are basically several different tales. 1. Solomon The whole problem starts, of course, with Velikovsky. He seemed to be unaware that Solomon is a fictional character and tried to tie him into real, i.e. Egyptian, history. I was surprised to discover, in the 1980s, in a serious and orthodox French-language serialisation of the Bible, richly illustrated and interspersed with reports of archaeological findings, that there is not a shred of evidence to prove that either David or Solomon were real people, unless we take the El-Amarna correspondence as providing literary proof for David- but Solomon? I still challenge anyone to show an inscription bearing his name, or any trace of the first temple in Jerusalem. It appears that there is not much evidence for an empire of the type described in the Bible existing either, though this may be a question of interpretation. Phillip ...
103. The Dating of Hammurabi [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... From: Proceedings of The Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History (1986) Home¦ Issue Contents The Dating of Hammurabi D. Hickman Several years ago an article expressed the idea that Hammurabi, king of the first dynasty of Babylon, was a contemporary of David, king of Israel. This conclusion was based upon quotations from the Mari letters cited by Werner Keller in his book, The Bible as History. Keller explained that the years of the kings of Mari were dated and identified by reference to a notable historical event. In particular, he cited three date-formulas which mention the Benjaminites or Benjamites: [1 "The year in which Iahdulim went to Hen and laid hands upon the territory of the Benjamites"; "The year that Zimri-Lim killed the Davidum of the Benjamites"; "The year after Zimri-Lim killed the Davidum of the Benjamites." Zimri-Lim was king of Mari at the time the Benjaminites and Davidum were prominent in the Middle East. Zimri-Lim was the contemporary of Hammurabi, king of the so-called First Dynasty of Babylon; Hammurabi overthrew ...
104. New Archaeological Dates for the Israelite Conquest Part II [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... over the past three decades surveys in Transjordan have revealed the existence of many Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze settlements, proving that the kingdoms of Edom and Moab mentioned in the conquest narratives could have existed as early as MB II. [22 But despite this evidence for some Middle and Late Bronze sedentary settlement in Transjordan (mostly in the area north of the Arnon River), problems remain. Punon (Feinan), Aroer ('Ara'ir), Dibon (Dhiban), and Heshbon (Hesban)-- all towns which the Bible says were in existence at the time of the exodus-- were not occupied during the Middle Bronze Age. [23 Bimson and Livingston argue that Middle Bronze II Heshbon and Dibon must have been located at sites other than Hesban and Dhiban, and that Egyptian texts prove that Dibon was occupied at least in the time of Thutmose III and Ramesses II (the Late Bronze Age). [24 But the reading of "Dibon" in the Egyptian texts they cite is not certain, [25 so we cannot be sure ...
105. The Stratigraphy of Israel [SIS C&C Workshop $]
... archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age, thereby putting the Exodus back in Early Bronze, equivalent to Old Kingdom Egypt. I turned to archaeology because there did not seem to be enough historical documentary evidence to find the true chronology. Some have attempted to supplement the historical record with myths and traditions, and that is certainly a valid approach but for myself I have turned primarily to archaeology, especially that of Israel, or Palestine as it was formerly called. Like Velikovsky, Rohl, James, Bimson and many others I regard the Bible as a useful historical source. I believe it provides a short-cut to correcting chronology. I also believe, like Heinsohn, that attempts by the early historians and archaeologists to match events to the Bible have partly caused the incorrect chronology that we now have. I am going, first, to briefly outline the faulty conventional chronology and some of the attempts at revision which led to my own version of chronology. As I stated in Workshop 1990:1 in my article 'Solomon, the Exodus and Abraham Related to Egyptian Chronology' ...
106. The Birth of Monotheism [Velikovsky Archive Website]
... lived on the same planet as the other peoples; the same world catastrophes impressed them as the other peoples. The cause of the catastrophes, as far as it was known to the Babylonians or Egyptians, must have been known also to them. Since the world catastrophes were caused by planets, each of these planets must have been deified not by a single people, but by all peoples, without exception. The fact that the ancient Hebrew word for God, Elohim. is plural can be accounted for by this. The Bible critics since Julius Wellhausen (1) paid much attention to the fact that in diverse parts of the Bible God is named by diverse names: Adonai, Elohim, Jahwe. Accordingly the Bible critics discern those parts which were composed by the followers of the cult of Elohim, who supposedly lived in the Northern Kingdom (Israel) from those which were composed by the adepts of the cult of Jahwe, whose religious center was in Jerusalem (Judah). Then, in the opinion of these critics, at a later date ...
107. Saul, David and Solomon [SIS C&C Review $]
... is 'a bed of a river', 'a river' and, more especially, the 'river of Egypt' or the Wadi el-Arish. This geographical information causes Velikovsky to place the 'city of Amalek' next to this wadi. He correctly tells us 'In winter it is torrential, in summer its bed is dry' [7. More geographical information helps to place Shur over against Egypt and Havilah in the general area of Sinai and NW Arabia [8 rather than the Euphrates area where Velikovsky says others place it. The New Bible Dictionary only gives Arabian locales for Havilah. Preceding his quotation from I Samuel 15: 7-8, Velikovsky says,'... 'until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt'. This was the southernmost point of the victorious campaign of Saul following the capture of the city of the Amalekites' [9. Sharuhen In 'The Hyksos Retreat to Idumaea', Velikovsky correctly draws attention to the improbable story of the retreat from Avaris as told by Manetho via Josephus. In his attempt to justify the involvement of ...
108. Abraham to Hezekiah: An Archaeological Revision Part II [Catastrophism & Ancient History Journal $]
... period (EBIV/MBI-MBIIA) which matches so closely the time of the Judges, gives us some assurance that our history and archaeology are properly synchronized. The Iron IC period is the era of Solomon according to the conventional chronology and represents the high point in Iron Age culture. But Iron IC does not even begin to measure up to the picture of prosperity and power given in the Scriptural narratives recording Solomon's reign. Concerning the period of the United Monarchy in general, Kenyon writes: "Its glories are triumphantly recorded in the Bible, and the recollection of them profoundly affected Jewish thought and aspirations. Yet the archaeological evidence for the period is meagre in the extreme." (44) Of the reign of Solomon in particular, Kenyon writes: "Archaeology has therefore provided us with little direct evidence of the glories of Solomon's court, and has shown that, away from the capital, the civilization was not of a very high order, nor are there striking signs of economic prosperity." (45) Yigael Yadin, who has excavated at Hazor ...
109. Catastrophism and Ancient History [Aeon Journal $]
... 'The Founding of Rome." H. A. STORCK, "Hereditary Monarchy in Assyria and the Assyrian Kinglist." VI/2. H. A. STORCK, 'The Hittite Raid." D. W. PATTEN, 'The Scars of Mars, Part I" L. J. MITCHAM, 'The Synchronistic Chronicler-- Critique." VII/1. D. W. PATTEN, 'The Scars of Mars, Part II." Z. SITCHIN, "'Nemesis'-- A New Idea as Old as the Bible?" R. L ZEIDMAN, "Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire." VII/2. D. HICKMAN, 'The Chronology of Israel and Judah, Part L" D. A. COURVILLE, "In Response to Mitcham's Critique.---L. J. MITCHAM, "Mitcham Replies." M. SIEFF,---Scarabin the Dust: Egypt in the Time of the Twenty-First Dynasty." VIII/1 D. HICKMAN, 'The Chronology of Israel and Judah, Part II." M. S. ...
110. The Sulman Temple In Jerusalem [Kronos $]
... century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon. Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to "assemble in the Temple of Sulman".(5) It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem.(6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Sulman in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, "the house which king Solomon built for the Lord",(7) this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Sulman was not heard ...
Search took 0.100 seconds
Search powered by Zoom Search Engine