Biblically Compatible Archaeology and Geography

  <img width="770" height="330" src="https://truebiblefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/elijah2.jpg" class="attachment-csco-800 size-csco-800 wp-post-image" alt="elijah being chased by king ahab" srcset="https://truebiblefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/elijah2.jpg 770w, https://truebiblefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/elijah2-320x137.jpg 320w, https://truebiblefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/elijah2-560x240.jpg 560w" sizes="(max-width: 770px) 100vw, 770px" />   by   Damien F. Mackey       Part One: Reprising my earlier Baasha view       Baasha of Israel is so Ahab-like that I feel it necessary to return to an old theory of mine, once written up but then discarded, due to complications, that Baasha was Ahab.       Previously I had written on this:   What triggered this article was the appare

by   Damien F. Mackey     “Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets … less than 10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1”. Georges Roux   … Kassites; likewise an ‘Indo-European’ people … a single quote from Roux might suffice here: ….   “Hittites, Mitannians and the ruling class of the Kassites belonged to a very large ethno-linguistic group called ‘Indo-European’, and their migrations were but part of wider ethnic movements which affected Europe and India as well as Western Asia”.   The Kassites, ‘Mitannians’ and Hurrians all seem to have expanded to approximately the same places

  by   Damien F. Mackey   Owing to the parlous state of the conventional archaeology and chronology, one has to dig very deeply to ‘lay spade’ on the true era of King Solomon of Israel. Quite useless have proven to be the shallow efforts of contemporary archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues. These, scratching around in an impoverished phase of the Iron Age in hopeful pursuit of - or is that hopeful good riddance to? - evidence for kings David and Solomon, and finding absolutely nothing of relevance, then boldly proclaim themselves to have destroyed the likes of Solomon.    We have already learned about Berlin chronologist Eduard Meyer’s most unfortunate off-setting of Egyptian history in relation to the biblical record - his artificial Sothic theory - and how it has served to push King Solomon’s Egyptian contemporaries, the Eighteenth Dynasty’s Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, into the C15th BC, about 500 years before Solomo