Any bible-beater or Zionist need only read any one of Israel Finkelsteins many books and see the mountains of evidence that begin to pile up against the Israelites even living prosperously in the region.

Yes, absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absense but there comes a time when you've been digging for half a century and you just have to come to the conclusion you are never going to find anything. Israel and Temple Mount in particular are some of the most excavated regions on the planet and we are still yet to find evidence for any type of absolute jewish ascendancy in the area.

Look at all the conflicts throughout history over that same 'crappy' land. I have never been to that area of the world, but it seems like if it were as bad as people are making it out to be no one would want it.

Armenia has been conquered by virtually every major empire going back 3,000 years with the (possible) exception of the Incas. Yes, what vast tract of fertile land flowing with milk and honey it must be to be so coveted by so many great powers.
It has all that oil...no wait, that's Iran immediately to the south.
It has lots of Uranium...no, that's Russia.
natural gas? Iran and Russia.

Bauxite? Yes, Bauxite! And pig iron, too! What valuable reserves of base metal!

Or, it could be that, like Israel, Armenia sits at the intersection of 2 continents and is a major crossroads of various major civilizations.

That land was indeed possessed by the Israelites under the reign of Solomon, who extended his kingdom further than his father David.

As I said in my post, large empires leave numerous traces. What archaeological evidence do you have for this statement?

2. That land was indeed possessed by the Israelites under the reign of Solomon, who extended his kingdom further than his father David.
In 2 Samuel 8:3 David extended the borders of his kingdom to the Euphrates.
In 2 Chronicles 9:26 Solomon possessed the land to the border of Egypt (the river Sichor mentioned above)

I think the point of the OP is that these Biblical claims are not borne out by physical evidence. Trotting out more verse as support hardly undercuts this argument.

AVT wrote:

I find it interesting when people say the 'promised land' wasn't that great yet everyone seems to want it. Look at all the conflicts throughout history over that same 'crappy' land. I have never been to that area of the world, but it seems like if it were as bad as people are making it out to be no one would want it.

It is not the quality of the land itself, but the fact that it sits astride the best invasion route between the Nile delta and Upper Mesopotamia, the two richest areas in the Near East and the natural centers of power. This fact puts Israel pretty much in the same spot as Poland, with simliar results.

"It could be speaking of the river Sichor which was on the border of Egypt."

Well, if you interpret "the river of Egypt" as "THE river of Egypt", it would have to be the Nile. To allege that it is a smaller river in Sinai would be like interpreting "the river of New York" as the Harlem River (which really is a channel rather than a river) instead of the Hudson.

I used to watch this crazy right-wing Jewish guy on Queens public access years ago, and he condemned Israel's return of the Sinai to Egypt and spoke of God given the Jews the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

In 2 Samuel 8:3 David extended the borders of his kingdom to the Euphrates.

And that means what, exactly? It could be fanciful exaggeration. Maybe David sent a small expeditionary force that made it to, or nearly to, the Euphrates. Then they declared it part of David's kingdom, turned around and returned back home, with no further Israelite presence in the area. Or, alternatively, a non-Israelite king whose territory extended to the Euphrates made a token show of fealty to David. That's not exactly extending one's borders to the Euphrates. To extend one's borders means that there was a sustained military presence to garrison the frontier and an administrative apparatus in place to govern the territory. To my knowledge, the archeological evidence does not support this.

Religion makes people do crazy (and/or stupid) things.

4. You didn't mention that in that promise of the land, God did say it wouldn't be for over 400 years and that they (Israel) would serve as slaves in Egypt in the intervening years. And we know that part of the 'promise' didn't fail.

Which part, them serving as slaves in Egypt? Actually, we don't know that promise didn't fail, as we don't seem to have evidence of Israeli presence in Egypt during the time periods in question.

Of course that means that none of his promises have the slightest human use...

"It could be speaking of the river Sichor which was on the border of Egypt."
Well, considering that a googling of Good Christian Sites® and multiple translations of the Bible and analyses of passages like Isaiah 23:3 in those translations shows that they can't even agree if the "Sihor" was or was not the Nile...

"2. That land was indeed possessed by the Israelites under the reign of Solomon, who extended his kingdom further than his father David.
In 2 Samuel 8:3 David extended the borders of his kingdom to the Euphrates.
In 2 Chronicles 9:26 Solomon possessed the land to the border of Egypt (the river Sichor mentioned above)"
^{{citation needed}}
I should also note that this conquering up to the Euphrates must've come as quite a shock to the Babylonians and Assyrians in the tail end of the Middle Assyrian period who were there and never noticed (although my memory of highschool history class is, admittedly, muddy).

"3. That Israel possessed that land for a time..."
^{{citation needed}}

"...and then lost it..."
^{{citation needed}}

"God did say it wouldn't be for over 400 years and that they (Israel) would serve as slaves in Egypt in the intervening years. And we know that part of the 'promise' didn't fail."
^{{citation needed}}

*I should note that I agree it was probably not the Nile. More likely, it was somewhere on the east side of the Sinai. This interpretation, no doubt, conflicts with other passages, other translations and other interpretations, but it at least puts it near the probable border of the tiny dump of ancient Israel (seriously, what kind of a God puts His favourites on a patch of not particularly good land right smack dab on the crossroads of other, much more powerful, empires? It was the land of milk and honey, but without the milk and honey, surrounded by nations that, frankly, didn't give a damn how much dear Yahweh loved them)

Just a couple of points that would need to be addressed here...
1. Not all Bible defenders would agree that "river of Egypt" is necessarily the Nile. It could be speaking of the river Sichor which was on the border of Egypt. Even today, many countries' borders are rivers or mountains. It was even more common in the ancient world.

2. That land was indeed possessed by the Israelites under the reign of Solomon, who extended his kingdom further than his father David.
In 2 Samuel 8:3 David extended the borders of his kingdom to the Euphrates.
In 2 Chronicles 9:26 Solomon possessed the land to the border of Egypt (the river Sichor mentioned above)

3. That Israel possessed that land for a time and then lost it does not, again, necessarily mean that it was a failed promise. For example if a parent promised to give his son a motorbike, with the proviso that he uses it only in the prescribed way, under certain conditions - off-road only, etc., and the child fails to do so, perhaps even injuring someone due to his disobedience, is it a failed promise if the parent then takes it back?

4. You didn't mention that in that promise of the land, God did say it wouldn't be for over 400 years and that they (Israel) would serve as slaves in Egypt in the intervening years. And we know that part of the 'promise' didn't fail.

These are my thoughts. I'll look forward to your response.