Bible way to Heaven

[Rhondazvous]

Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.

Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).

You apparently didn't listen to a word I said. All your article does is criticize Finkelstein for being a skeptic, and implies that he's a Minimalist even though he is not, says he is not, and disagrees with the Minimalists on numerous accounts. The only serious scholar quoted in your referenced article is Kenneth Kitchen, an Evangelical Christian and Biblical Literalist.  That's exactly the opposite of what I meant when I said that you need to look to sources outside your original frame of reference.

You also clearly didn't watch Dr. Finkelstein's video, in which he explains several of the problems with the Tel Dan find, of which the author is apparently unaware, as referenced by the article you cited.

Edit to Add: Seriously, in reference to a guy who lives and works every day in the Holy Land, you referenced these guys:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.

Think on that for a little bit. No joke. Not being mean. I want you to really consider your biases.

(Another Google Maps photo of the place.)

If Randy's argument needs the man to be a minimalist, then that's what he is, okay.