Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Eddie Larry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If this is the case Lee, I suggest dropping the
> references to Amenhotep III, oops I mean Solomon,
> and, also, the epic of Gilgamesh, and just talk
> about the verifiable archaeology. I don’t think
> your points 1 and 3 help your argument; they are
> distractions. IMHO.
What is "verifiable archaeology" exactly?
The Sumerian tablets are verified.
They were found by archaeologists.
Therefore they are "verifiable archaeology" and Gilgamesh is a verified archaeological source.
How can they not be of historical value? Which of the clay tablets should we considerable worthy of discussion, and which of the verified archaeological tablets should we discard? And who makes this decision?
I guess you're throwing out the Bible because it wasn't found with shovel. Are you saying the Bible has no historical value and we should ignore all references to places, names and people? I'm pretty sure the Jews would disagree. And I'm pretty sure archaeologists and scholars in all fields will continue to look for biblical places and people.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-18 16:57 by Audrey.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If this is the case Lee, I suggest dropping the
> references to Amenhotep III, oops I mean Solomon,
> and, also, the epic of Gilgamesh, and just talk
> about the verifiable archaeology. I don’t think
> your points 1 and 3 help your argument; they are
> distractions. IMHO.
What is "verifiable archaeology" exactly?
The Sumerian tablets are verified.
They were found by archaeologists.
Therefore they are "verifiable archaeology" and Gilgamesh is a verified archaeological source.
How can they not be of historical value? Which of the clay tablets should we considerable worthy of discussion, and which of the verified archaeological tablets should we discard? And who makes this decision?
I guess you're throwing out the Bible because it wasn't found with shovel. Are you saying the Bible has no historical value and we should ignore all references to places, names and people? I'm pretty sure the Jews would disagree. And I'm pretty sure archaeologists and scholars in all fields will continue to look for biblical places and people.
He who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions - Confucius
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-18 16:57 by Audrey.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.