Biblically Compatible Archaeology and Geography

by Damien F. Mackey Bible believers who might lack a proper perspective with regard to how biblical characters and events sit in relation to archaeological levels and geographical locations can sometimes latch on to the report of a new archaeological discovery believed to confirm the Bible, when in fact it doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on what it purports to uphold. That is exactly the case with a recent situation regarding SODOM as pointed out to me by a reader, who had suggested that the reported finding of the destroyed city of Sodom, Tell-el-Hammam, 14 km NE of the Dead Sea (http://www.thesacredpage.com/2011/12/sodom-and-gomorrah-excavated.html), might be worth our playing close attention to. IT IS NOT! And that is precisely what I told the reader. It was sufficient - for me to feel compelled to reject the site’s validity for Sodom - merely to read that this site showing destruction (and ‘a heat event’ has even been proposed as the cause of this destruct

Table of Nations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taken from: http://www.ezekielwatch.com/TheNations/TableofNations/tabid/1432/Default.aspx The passage of Scripture known as the Table of Nations is Genesis 10, in which the first few generations of the sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) are described. Some of the lines have only 1 generation from their founder, while other have 3-4. The Abrahamic line from Shem is the only one that is maintained in Genesis, because it is the line through which the Messiah would come. The book of Genesis had multiple authors (probably around 10 different contributors) who would each contribute their part of the stories and the relevant geneaology. However, the Bible is clear in attributing the final editing and combining of the records of Genesis to Moses.There are several theories as to how the nations spread out after Noah and his family left the ark. Some scholars believe that the nations

 “As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II”.   Toby has further written: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893   Greetings all, I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib … much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL …. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture. But there is more. This part is just a few snippets from … Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. It is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section i

Taken from Robert Temple’s Egyptian Dawn. Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt (Century 2010). Pp. 399-400: "[On the Atlantic Culture] …. Countless authors, ancient and modern, have commented upon the Atlantic cultures, but these remarks have rarely been given proper attention Perhaps the reason for this is that there is no academic disci¬pline or academic department concerned with 'Atlantic culture'. As soon as the archaeologists of one region of the world begin to discuss it, they feel uncomfortable, because they are 'straying beyond their boundaries'. There is nothing that makes an academic more nervous than that, because it opens him up to criticism by his colleagues. The academic world is a vicious world, where no mercy is ever shown, and where the slightest slip from 'consensus behaviour' can endanger an academic's entire career. It is only people like myself, who do not depend upon the favour and approval of peers for a liveliho

Rasputin said...   To Damien: Your thesis on the Revised History of Hezekiah was brilliantly argued and should have resulted in a PHD so that your gift in complicated historical revisionism could have been more further developed. In this thesis, you covered an incredible amount of data but unfortunately one examiner has prevented you from achieving your full academic potential. The university will be poorer for not having awarded you a well deserved PHD for I surmise that you would have made hundreds of other connections in ancient history that would have shed more light in a field that is strewn with a great deal of confusion. Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish and out of the mists will arise a new historical chronology that will again dramatically shorten the length of Egyptian chronology. I think the works of Velikovsky, Courville and Mackey and others will eventually unseat the modern Pharisees and Sadduccees who hold sway over the old ort