Greg Parker Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Greg, I've just found the perfect way to describe the Harvey and Lee syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy "The Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. How ironic is that? "It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist." LOL --Tommy Perfect! Mr. PEFECT AKA GREG PARKER PLEASE SHOW Department of Defense unit diaries, Dec. 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 013485). =================================================================== thanks sg Read volume 2 of my book when it comes out, Stevo. But I'm glad to see you've tossed everything else overboard. Progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Greg, I've just found the perfect way to describe the Harvey and Lee syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy "The Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. How ironic is that? "It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist." LOL --Tommy Perfect! Mr. PEFECT AKA GREG PARKER PLEASE SHOW Department of Defense unit diaries, Dec. 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 013485). =================================================================== thanks sg Read volume 2 of my book when it comes out, Stevo. But I'm glad to see you've tossed everything else overboard. Progress. All facts are contextual. ,gaal A optical densitometer is a scientific instrument not a fantasy. ,gaal (HSCA stated that the x-rays were good) Edited August 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Department of Defense unit diaries, Dec. 5, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 013485). The HSCA document Steven is referring to above includes, I think, Marine Corps unit diaries listing troop movements during the time Harvey Oswald traveled to Taiwan and briefly served there, as well as an official denial that he ever left Japan. At any rate, this period is shrouded in secrecy and conflicting evidence for a very simple reason. This was when Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald assumed the identity of New Orleans-born Lee Oswald in preparation for Harvey's false defection to the USSR. While Harvey was in Taiwan, Lee remained in Japan. During this time, Harvey's caretaker “mother” was living at 3006 Bristol Road in Fort Worth. The real Marguerite Oswald was living in apartment 3 at 3830 W. 6th, also in Fort Worth. Soon enough, phony Marguerite would claim that an equally phony nose injury required early release of her “son” from the Marines, thus establishing a paper trail “proving” that she was the mother of the soldier who would soon “defect” to Russia. This material is covered in far greater detail in Harvey and Lee, pp. 195-202. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Jim Hargrove, I subscribe to the two Oswalds proposition, but I struggle to grasp the notion that Harvey assumed Lee's identity. Lee had no reason to speak or write the Russian language. Maybe Harvey did. So why confuse the two? Another question: What do you think happened to the real Marguerite Oswald? She seems to have disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Another question: What do you think happened to the real Marguerite Oswald? She seems to have disappeared. These naboobs think Robert Oswald's first wife took the role. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=102795476 You want to follow them down that grave hole as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Greg, I've just found the perfect way to describe the Harvey and Lee syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy "The Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. How ironic is that? "It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist." LOL --Tommy Perfect indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Another question: What do you think happened to the real Marguerite Oswald? She seems to have disappeared. These naboobs think Robert Oswald's first wife took the role. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=102795476 You want to follow them down that grave hole as well? Greg, It sounds like a dead end to me. LOL --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Jim Hargrove, I subscribe to the two Oswalds proposition, but I struggle to grasp the notion that Harvey assumed Lee's identity. Lee had no reason to speak or write the Russian language. Maybe Harvey did. So why confuse the two? Another question: What do you think happened to the real Marguerite Oswald? She seems to have disappeared. Hi Jon, The deliberate effort to "confuse" the two kids, as you put it, was really a long-term American intelligence operation designed to give a Russian-speaking youth an American identity and birth certificate so that he could eventually "defect" to Soviet Russia, where his secret fluency in Russian could be put to good advantage. This is exactly what happened. Although Russian-speaking Harvey didn't exactly fool suspicious Russian authorities (for example, doctors in a Moscow hospital noted that he seemed to understand questions in Russian moments before he claimed he didn't), he apparently made real efforts to do his job well. His very long and beautifully written report on the life of Russian workers has been hiding in plain sight for more than half a century as Warren Commission Exhibit 92 (Vol 16; pp 287-336). The typed version, for some reason, includes grammatical corrections. The typed version of the document is shown here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0156a.htm An easier to read version is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm John A. believes that Harvey Oswald may well have been a World War II orphan from one of those Eastern Bloc European nations where the Russian language was taught to kids from an early age, possibly, according to at least one report, Hungary. In 1953 in New York City, Dr. Renatus Hartogs described (Harvey) Oswald as "thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe after the war." After the assassination, Yale Professor Vladimir Petrov of the Slavic Language Department offered his opinion that the author of a letter written by (Harvey) Oswald to Senator John Tower was written by a "native speaking Russian with an imperfect knowledge of the English language." As for your other question about the real Marguerite Oswald, I can only speculate that several years before the assassination U.S. Intelligence helped her change her name and relocate, something similar, perhaps, to a witness protection program. Armstrong wrote the following paragraph on my website about the real Marguerite: It is worth noting that the FBI failed to interview a single co-worker or employer of LEE Oswald's tall-nice-looking mother when she worked for Goldrings, Kreigers, and Holmes Dept Stores in New Orleans and for Clyde Campbell's Men's Store, the City of Ft. Worth, Paul's Shoe Store, Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store in Ft. Worth from 1956 through 1961. The FBI never obtained any employment information, W-2 forms, payroll records, employment applications or anything else from any of her employers. The FBI simply didn't want to interview anyone or gather records from any employer who knew the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald. They intentionally ignored the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald after 1956, and focused their attention on the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor. It is also worth noting that from 1956 through 1959 not a single friend, neighbor, or employer of the short, dumpy Marguerite Oswald impostor recalled even a single visit by John Pic, Robert Oswald, HARVEY Oswald, or LEE Oswald. This is perfectly understandable, because the brothers did not know this woman, she was not their mother, nor was she HARVEY's mother. The FBI's failure to interview people in Ft. Worth and New Orleans who knew LEE Oswald and his tall, nice-looking mother--neighbors, friends, employers, co-workers--people who could have described their physical appearance in detail, their place of residence, their employment, etc. is another "smoking gun." For more information, see: HarveyandLee.net . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) It is worth noting that the FBI failed to interview a single co-worker or employer of LEE Oswald's tall-nice-looking mother when she worked for Goldrings, Kreigers, and Holmes Dept Stores in New Orleans and for Clyde Campbell's Men's Store, the City of Ft. Worth, Paul's Shoe Store, Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store in Ft. Worth from 1956 through 1961. The FBI never obtained any employment information, W-2 forms, payroll records, employment applications or anything else from any of her employers. The FBI simply didn't want to interview anyone or gather records from any employer who knew the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald. They intentionally ignored the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald after 1956, and focused their attention on the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor. ================= THE ANTI H & L CROWD WOULD HAVE EVERYONE BELIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE : that the creator (Marguerite) of a super dangerous communist (LHO) would not have her background checked thoroughly for communist associations /connections. ,gaal IMPOSSIBLE >>>>>>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE <<<<<<<< ========================================================================== Edited August 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Jim Hargrove, I subscribe to the two Oswalds proposition, but I struggle to grasp the notion that Harvey assumed Lee's identity. Lee had no reason to speak or write the Russian language. Maybe Harvey did. So why confuse the two? Another question: What do you think happened to the real Marguerite Oswald? She seems to have disappeared. Hi Jon, The deliberate effort to "confuse" the two kids, as you put it, was really a long-term American intelligence operation designed to give a Russian-speaking youth an American identity and birth certificate so that he could eventually "defect" to Soviet Russia, where his secret fluency in Russian could be put to good advantage. This is exactly what happened. Although Russian-speaking Harvey didn't exactly fool suspicious Russian authorities (for example, doctors in a Moscow hospital noted that he seemed to understand questions in Russian moments before he claimed he didn't), he apparently made real efforts to do his job well. His very long and beautifully written report on the life of Russian workers has been hiding in plain sight for more than half a century as Warren Commission Exhibit 92 (Vol 16; pp 287-336). The typed version, for some reason, includes grammatical corrections. The typed version of the document is shown here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0156a.htm An easier to read version is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm John A. believes that Harvey Oswald may well have been a World War II orphan from one of those Eastern Bloc European nations where the Russian language was taught to kids from an early age, possibly, according to at least one report, Hungary. In 1953 in New York City, Dr. Renatus Hartogs described (Harvey) Oswald as "thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe after the war." After the assassination, Yale Professor Vladimir Petrov of the Slavic Language Department offered his opinion that the author of a letter written by (Harvey) Oswald to Senator John Tower was written by a "native speaking Russian with an imperfect knowledge of the English language." As for your other question about the real Marguerite Oswald, I can only speculate that several years before the assassination U.S. Intelligence helped her change her name and relocate, something similar, perhaps, to a witness protection program. Armstrong wrote the following paragraph on my website about the real Marguerite: It is worth noting that the FBI failed to interview a single co-worker or employer of LEE Oswald's tall-nice-looking mother when she worked for Goldrings, Kreigers, and Holmes Dept Stores in New Orleans and for Clyde Campbell's Men's Store, the City of Ft. Worth, Paul's Shoe Store, Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store in Ft. Worth from 1956 through 1961. The FBI never obtained any employment information, W-2 forms, payroll records, employment applications or anything else from any of her employers. The FBI simply didn't want to interview anyone or gather records from any employer who knew the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald. They intentionally ignored the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald after 1956, and focused their attention on the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor. It is also worth noting that from 1956 through 1959 not a single friend, neighbor, or employer of the short, dumpy Marguerite Oswald impostor recalled even a single visit by John Pic, Robert Oswald, HARVEY Oswald, or LEE Oswald. This is perfectly understandable, because the brothers did not know this woman, she was not their mother, nor was she HARVEY's mother. The FBI's failure to interview people in Ft. Worth and New Orleans who knew LEE Oswald and his tall, nice-looking mother--neighbors, friends, employers, co-workers--people who could have described their physical appearance in detail, their place of residence, their employment, etc. is another "smoking gun." For more information, see: HarveyandLee.net . Don't be coy Mr H. There were two of them Bill... Margaret and Marguerite... both Keating's - maybe read the Evans' testimony?... they knew both M.Oswald's and experienced the drastic change, the years of non-contact, etc.... I was very specific... if you don't know or understand the difference or the situation as Armstrong presents it... maybe you should do a little reading before you come at me... thanks http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6499.70;wap2 There's the key phrase - the situation AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Jim Hargrove, Thanks. Two matters: [1] Marina's husband had a great spoken, and apparently from what you cite, written command of English, which is contra to what the Yale professor opined. [2] The Walker letter, as I've written elsewhere here, is filled with errors of the sort no native Russian language speaker would make; errors of usage, character formation, grammar, and spelling. This according to my daughter, who is a Russian language and literature scholar, who has taught Russian language at an Ivy League university, and who at my request examined the so-called Walker letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article Edited August 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Just wiki not look at info. It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal == Bones, Stones, and the Scriptures: Has Archaeology Helped or Hurt the Bible? By: Joel B. Groat posted in fair use Of the areas of study related to the Bible's history, few are as exciting as archaeology. Digging for articles buried thousands of years ago, uncovering pottery, tools, lamps and other treasures, excavating ancient cities and houses; all these stir the imagination and narrow the gap between then and now. But how have archaeological studies affected our knowledge of the Bible and its credibility as authentic, ancient Scripture? Has archaeology helped or hurt the Bible? "Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." This is an important question because the Bible's historical and spiritual messages are intertwined. For example, the Bible uses the miraculous capture of Jericho as an example of God's power and provision on behalf of those who trust Him. If this incident never occurred, the principles derived from it have no ties to reality, and our reason for believing evaporates. Because it claims to be real history and not myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity. As a result, we who accept the Bible as historical Scripture consider the findings of archaeology relevant to our faith. If the biblical narrative is comprised of factual accounts there should be evidence to support the stories. So what kind of evidence do we have? How has archaeology impacted the credibility of the Bible? Jericho: Did "The Walls Come Tumblin' Down"? The Old Testament story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-25) is a good example of a specific biblical event for which archaeology has provided striking confirmation. The Bible relates God's dramatic intervention for His people after they enter the land of Canaan. The Israelites storm the city of Jericho after its fortified walls miraculously collapse allowing them to march straight up into the city. In the past, many critics relegated this story to the genre of faith-promoting myth. However, excavations done at the site have revealed a number of interesting details which support this biblical story. The archaeological evidence is summarized by scholar Bryant G. Wood in the March/April 1990 Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Wood comments: "The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative is substantial: the city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5,7,15, 6:5,20); the attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10); the inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1); the siege was short (Joshua 6:15); the walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20); the city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18); the city was burned (Joshua 6:24)." 1 Of course there are limits to what archaeology can confirm. It cannot prove a miracle caused the walls of Jericho to fall, but by verifying specific details of Joshua 6, it strengthens the credibility of the Bible as an authentic ancient record. Solomon's Lavish Empire For years critics considered the Bible's lavish descriptions of Solomon's empire to be greatly embellished. Today most of those critics have been silenced as a result of archaeological discoveries which substantiate a number of specific details of the Solomonic era, including: His use of a naval fleet to gather wealth (1 Kings 10:22). The existence of copper mining and ore refineries for smelting copper and manufacturing bronze (1 Kings 7:13, 14, 45-46). The specific towns and cities that comprised much of his empire (1 Kings 9:15-17).2 Real People And Places Archaeologists have sometimes discovered evidence for small details in the Bible which previously seemed inconsequential. For example, the writer of 1 Kings 9:15-17 mentions in passing Solomon's construction work on the towns of Jerusalem, Hazor and Megiddo and the rebuilding of the town of Gezer after its destruction by an Egyptian Pharaoh. Prof. William G. Dever, though disdainful of biblical Christianity, has noted that this passage was considered of little significance: " ... until modern archaeologists uncovered similar Solomonic city gates and walls at Hazor and Megiddo, and then discovered an Egyptian destruction and nearly identical city walls and gate at Gezer." Prof. Dever goes on to say, "Here we have confirmation of a neglected, rather laconic footnote to biblical history, the more dramatic because it was totally unexpected: No one had set out to prove the historicity of this text."3 Though not as dramatic as the discoveries at Jericho, in their own way such details offer important support for the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical record. This reaffirms that the Bible is not talking about unsubstantiated places and unverifiable events, but real people and places in real history. In addition to the examples described above, all of the following places, names and objects and many more besides, are historically confirmed parts of the biblical narrative: Jehu, king of Israel - name inscribed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (1 Kings 19:16-19; 2 Kings 9-10).4 Hezekiah's Tunnel - cut through solid rock and discovered in 1880 (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30)5 Heshbon - city mentioned 38 times in the Bible. The site is known today as Hisban and pottery found there dates back to 900 B.C. (Numbers 21:25 ff; Joshua 13:17).6 Darius, Persian monarch - ancient texts dating to 498 B.C. confirm both his existence and identity as described in Ezra 4-6.7 Claudius, Roman emperor - Two literary archaeological discoveries link him to the New Testament, where he is mentioned in Acts 11:28, and 18:28 daric, drachma, denarius - Persian and Roman coins mentioned in the Bible, now verified by archaeology.9 Asherah, Baal - Prominent Canaanite gods attested to by mythical literary materials discovered at Ugarit dating to biblical times, as well as a figure of Baal carved in limestone dated at least to 1650 B.C. The morally depraved practices associated with these gods are in keeping with Old Testament condemnations of anyone associating with them (e.g., Judges 3:7, 1 Kings 18).10 Because of the vast amount of one-to-one correspondence, the Bible has earned widespread respect among archaeologists. Prof. William G. Dever of the University of Arizona has stated: "The Bible is no longer an isolated relic from antiquity, without provenance and thus without credibility. Archaeology may not have proven the specific historical existence of certain biblical personalities such as Abraham or Moses, but it has for all time demolished the notion that the Bible is pure mythology. (OOPS,gaal) The Bible is about real, flesh-and-blood people, in a particular time and place ... "11 Likewise, Millar Burrows of Yale University writes: "The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronisms and incongruities."12 Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck could write: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."13 The Bible is trustworthy and true. Archaeological studies continue to verify that the events and people portrayed in the biblical record are historically accurate, and textual studies have confirmed the precision and accuracy of our copies of the Bible, divinely preserved by God through centuries of translation and transmission.14 With renewed confidence in the Bible, we too can say with the psalmist, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:105, 160). Notes 1. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho; A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990, pp. 44-58. 2. Edward M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, editors, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 419-422. While the exact dating of the smelting sites is debated, there is incontestable evidence that metallurgy was practiced during biblical times. 3. William G. Dever, "Archaeology And The Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship," adapted from Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, by the editors of Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990, p. 56. 4. Blaiklock & Harrison, p. 409. 5. Ibid, p. 237. 6. Ibid, p. 236. 7. Ibid, p. 149 ff. 8. Ibid, p. 131. 9. Ibid, p. 134-135. 10. Ibid, p. 460-461. Note: King James Version uses "groves" for what now is translated "Asherah(s)." 11. William G. Dever, p. 55. 12. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 42. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 267. 13. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of the Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969), p. 31. As cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1979 rev., p. 65. 14. For a thorough treatment of the textual reliability of the Bible and the accuracy of today's translations see Heart and Mind series "Can We Trust the Bible?", parts 1-4 (Spring 1990, Summer 1990, Winter 1991, Summer 1991). ======================================================================================= Edited August 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 AS ARMSTRONG PRESENTS IT. = the History of the world --- AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS IT. // Parker ==================================================================================== The Walls of Jericho - Excerpt Jericho was once thought to be a “Bible problem” because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified... see (article & 54 minute video) --------------------------- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx#Article Almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little of historical value.[7] It was written by authors far removed from the times it depicts,[8] and was intended to illustrate a theological scheme in which Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the book of Deuteronomy, rather than as history in the modern sense.[9] The story of Jericho, and the conquest generally, probably represents the nationalist propaganda of the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;[10] these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538.[11] The combination of archaeological evidence and analysis of the composition history and theological purposes of the Book of Joshua lies behind the judgement of archaeologist William G. Dever that the battle of Jericho "seems invented out of whole cloth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho Just wiki not look at info. It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Ah yes... faith over science....Propaganda over raw data https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/pub(6ea47cb4-6dc2-4d13-9b29-1ce09bb7a757).html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts