Delete / Löschen

John J. Bimson - "The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories"

"Chuck"
21.01.2010 - 20:52
I'm going to start supplying some of the journal articles written by
scholars whose views substantially challenge the current liberal "majority".
There have been many extremely exaggerated claims made about the strength of
the arguments put forward by this scholarly liberal consensus...for one that
it forms any kind of consensus beyond it's starting presuppositions!

In any case, here is a good article to begin the series with, as it examines
several modern theories that are used to challenge the historicity of the
Exodus and the conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. Take special note
of the fact that the theories most enimical to the Bible's account of this
period in Israel's history suffer as many, if not more weaknesses and
inability to account for the current archaeological data as do the
traditional conservative 12th century, and the more recent 15th century
theories. This is in direct contrast to the claims one normally hears for
these theories from biblical skeptics.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html

Chuck



"I"
21.01.2010 - 22:18
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html


John J Bimson is an obscure fundamentalist lecturer who wriote this article
in Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15.

1989 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's REALLY up-to-date and contemporary compared to your fundamentalism
from the 1800s!!!!!!

Do you think that there might possibly be more that has happened in
scholarship over the past 20 years????


--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)











Seeker
21.01.2010 - 22:35
On Jan 21, 11:520am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
I'm going to start supplying some of the journal articles written by
scholars whose views substantially challenge the current liberal "majorit=
y".

Are they going to be real challenges or are they just going to be
fudge?

There have been many extremely exaggerated claims made about the strength=
of
the arguments put forward by this scholarly liberal consensus...

It is the consensus isn't it? Yet you choose to mischaracterize it as
"liberal". Your loaded word fallacy appeals to emotions in order to
persuade others to ignore the consensus. Science isn't about
popularity or politics.

. . . for one that
it forms any kind of consensus beyond it's starting presuppositions!

What do you mean?

In any case, here is a good article to begin the series with, as it exami=
nes
several modern theories that are used to challenge the historicity of the
Exodus and the conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. 0Take special=
note
of the fact that the theories most enimical to the Bible's account of thi=
s
period in Israel's history suffer as many, if not more weaknesses and
inability to account for the current archaeological data as do the
traditional conservative 12th century, and the more recent 15th century
theories.

So why should we cling to your agenda? Science is following the
evidence where it goes. Using the evidence to justify your agenda is
anti-science.

0This is in direct contrast to the claims one normally hears for
these theories from biblical skeptics.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html

I will look into it with a separate post.


"Chuck"
22.01.2010 - 01:21

"Seeker" <email@anonym; wrote in message
news:email@anonym...
On Jan 21, 11:52 am, "Chuck" <shellstamf...@cox.net> wrote:
I'm going to start supplying some of the journal articles written by
scholars whose views substantially challenge the current liberal
"majority".

Are they going to be real challenges or are they just going to be
fudge?

There have been many extremely exaggerated claims made about the strength
of
the arguments put forward by this scholarly liberal consensus...

It is the consensus isn't it? Yet you choose to mischaracterize it as
"liberal". Your loaded word fallacy appeals to emotions in order to
persuade others to ignore the consensus. Science isn't about
popularity or politics.

. . . for one that
it forms any kind of consensus beyond it's starting presuppositions!

What do you mean?

In any case, here is a good article to begin the series with, as it
examines
several modern theories that are used to challenge the historicity of the
Exodus and the conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. Take special
note
of the fact that the theories most enimical to the Bible's account of this
period in Israel's history suffer as many, if not more weaknesses and
inability to account for the current archaeological data as do the
traditional conservative 12th century, and the more recent 15th century
theories.

So why should we cling to your agenda? Science is following the
evidence where it goes. Using the evidence to justify your agenda is
anti-science.

This is in direct contrast to the claims one normally hears for
these theories from biblical skeptics.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html

I will look into it with a separate post.

========================

Chuck: You do that. However, I won't be debating it with you. I certainly
don't have anything to add to a scholar like Bimson, and I'm not providing
his article so that everyone can beleive every word he writes. So even if I
felt qualified to defend his views in debate, and even if I thought YOU were
qualified to contest them in debate, debating isn't the reason I'm doing
this. Providing scholarly arguments is the reason, instead of just opinions
ABOUT scholarly arguments. I'm going to supply the ACTUAL arguments we
never get to see (at least the conservative arguments we never get to
see...I'll let you liberals do your own presenting of the scholarly journal
articles for the alternative views if you're not satisfied with their
representation in the one's I'll be providing), and let everyone make up
their own mind uncoached by me.




"I"
22.01.2010 - 01:43
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

I certainly don't have anything to add to a scholar like Bimson

... and what a "scholar" !!! A lecturer (not a Professor) in Old Testament
at Trinity, Bristol.


I'll let you liberals

Chucky calls anyone who follows CONTEMPORARY theology (as opposed to his
backwards thinking fundamentalist theology from the 1800s) a "liberal".

--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1





"Chuck"
22.01.2010 - 01:45

"I" <email@anonym; wrote in message
news:4b58c493$email@anonym...
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html


John J Bimson is an obscure fundamentalist lecturer who wriote this
article in Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15.

Obscure fundamentalist lecturer...right.

This is not to defend Dr. Bimson so much as to show Mark for the malicious
twister of facts that he is:

Dr John Bimson BA PhD
Tutor in Old Testament

John studied at Sheffield University where he did his degree and
postgraduate research at the Department of Biblical Studies in the 1970s.
His doctoral research was on the historicity and setting of the Exodus and
Conquest. He spent two years at Tyndale House in Cambridge doing research on
the patriarchal narratives. He joined the Faculty at Trinity in 1981.

His special interests include the historical and archaeological background
to the Old Testament as a tool for understanding it, and he has taken part
in excavations in Israel. He is also interested in environmental issues and
in developing a biblical perspective on creation care. In recent years he
has become a regular speaker on such topics. He is committed to
demonstrating the continuing importance and relevance of the Old Testament.

Publications (selected)

Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978; 2nd edition
Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981).

'Archaeological data and the dating of the patriarchs', in A. R. Millard and
D. J. Wiseman (eds), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester: IVP,
1980), 59-92.

New Bible Atlas (contributing editor with J. P. Kane) (Leicester: IVP,
1985).

'Redating the Exodus' (with D. Livingston), Biblical Archaeology Review,
vol. XIII, no. 5, 1987, 40-53, 66-68.

The World of the Old Testament (London: Scripture Union, 1988).

'Exodus and Conquest - Myth or Reality? Can Archaeology Provide the
Answer?', Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 2, 1988, 27-40.

Travel Diary of the Holy Land (Tring: Lion, 1989).

'The Origins of Israel in Canaan: an examination of recent theories',
Themelios, vol. 15, no. 1, 1989, 4-15.

'The Philistines: their origins and chronology reassessed', Journal of the
Ancient Chronology Forum, 4, 1990, 58-76.

'Merenptah's Israel and Recent Theories of Israelite Origins', Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, 49, 1991, 3-29.

'Shishak and Shoshenq: a case of mistaken identity?', Journal of the Ancient
Chronology Forum, 6, 1992, 19-32.

'I-II Kings', in D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and G. J. Wenham
(eds), New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (Leicester: IVP, 1994),
334-387.

Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Places (Consulting Editor and Contributor)
(Leicester: IVP, 1995).

Introduction to A. Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as they
were at the Time of Jesus Christ, illustrated edition (Aylesbury: Angus
Hudson, 1997), 7-21.

'Iron Age Palestine: The Need for Chronological Revision', Journal of the
Ancient Chronology Forum, 8, 1999, 57-65.

'Bringing the Past to Life', 'Nomadic Life' and 'Settled Life', in
D.Alexander and P. Alexander (eds), The Lion Handbook to the Bible, 3rd
edn.,(Oxford: Lion, 1999).

'Who is 'this' in 'Who is this' (Job 38.2)? A Response to Karl G. Wilcox',
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 87, 2000, 125-128.

(When) Did it Happen? New Contexts for Old Testament History (Cambridge:
Grove, 2003). See box below

'Joseph: an Egyptian vizier?', 'The Israelite Exodus; myth or reality?', and
'Who was 'King Shishak of Egypt'?', in B. Manley (ed), The Seventy Great
Mysteries of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003). See box below.
'Reconsidering a Cosmic Fall', Science and Christian Belief 18/1, 2006,
63-81.

As can be easily discerned fro the above, in Dr. Bimson we are dealing with
a biblical scholar who has spent his whole career in the study of Israel
from Egypt to Canaan; in short, a Phd AND a specialist in the field covered
by the article provided.


1989 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's still being published, Mark, as you can clearly see from his above
published works. If his monograph here needed any significant updating he
would have.


That's REALLY up-to-date and contemporary compared to your fundamentalism
from the 1800s!!!!!!

Do you think that there might possibly be more that has happened in
scholarship over the past 20 years????

Well, let's see, Mark. Bimson interacts with Finkelstein's work (1988) in
his article, to name just one scholar. Would you call Finkelstein dated?
Funny, no one I've ever seen drop his name in the course of some rant they
were engaged in seemed to think his theories concerning the origin of Israel
were out of date.

Stay tuned...the rides' just beginning.





"Chuck"
22.01.2010 - 01:51


"I" <email@anonym; wrote in message
news:4b58f4b4$email@anonym...
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

I certainly don't have anything to add to a scholar like Bimson

... and what a "scholar" !!! A lecturer (not a Professor) in Old
Testament at Trinity, Bristol.

He's did his doctoral thesis on exactly the subject of this article in the
70's, Mark, and as pretty much stuck to that field of study his whole
career. What more could anyone ask for? You think media stardom is worth
more than 40 years of study?



I'll let you liberals

Chucky calls anyone who follows CONTEMPORARY theology (as opposed to his
backwards thinking fundamentalist theology from the 1800s) a "liberal".

Wrong again. Contemporary theology is represented by conservatives too.

Chuck



"I"
22.01.2010 - 01:52
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html
John J Bimson is an obscure fundamentalist lecturer who wrote this
article in Themelios 15.1 (October 1989): 4-15.

Obscure fundamentalist lecturer...right.

Yep!


Dr John Bimson BA PhD
Tutor in Old Testament

TUTOR is NOT Professor.

He is an underling of a Professor.


1989 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's still being published

How absolutely wonderful! Maybe you could post something he has done
RECENTLY and not 20 years ago. ;-)


That's REALLY up-to-date and contemporary compared to your fundamentalism
from the 1800s!!!!!!
Do you think that there might possibly be more that has happened in
scholarship over the past 20 years????

Well, let's see

Yes, let's see if Chucky can quote something CONTEMPORARY rather than a
fundamentalist hack that desperately tries to bolster up a flagging
fundamentalism from the 1800s!!!!

Once again Chucky proves James Barr true ...........

--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1



"I"
22.01.2010 - 01:58
"Chuck" <email@anonym; wrote:

I certainly don't have anything to add to a scholar like Bimson
... and what a "scholar" !!! A lecturer (not a Professor) in Old
Testament at Trinity, Bristol.

He's did his doctoral thesis on exactly the subject of this article

I'm SO impressed ..... not!


I'll let you liberals
Chucky calls anyone who follows CONTEMPORARY theology (as opposed to his
backwards thinking fundamentalist theology from the 1800s) a "liberal".

Wrong again.

OH! So there ARE contemporary theologians who are NOT holding to backwards
thinking fundamentalist theology from the 1800s and who are NOT
"liberal"????

Wonderful! You've finally learnt something.

Only ignorant fundamentalists call contemporary theologians "liberal' -
harkening back to the good ol' days of the fundamentalist 1800s.

Has your fundamentalist theology of the 1800s produced anything NEW??????

Didn't think so.

--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1












Share/Bookmark