Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[Forum Monk]

Fundamentalist vs. MC Hawking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

[Minimalist]

There is absolutely NO evidence of extra-terrestial life, even the most basic, unintelligent forms, and yet, many scientists believe life, not of this earth exists.

Agreed but I suspect what most of them say is that the numbers and probabilities come into play. There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. I doubt that many people on the planet can comprehend the magnitude of that number but if you start subtracting out stars which have planetary systems, systems which have planets in the "happy zone", planets where an atmosphere developed...etc, etc... they can still work it down to a million possible earth-like planets just in our galaxy.

I dismiss the idea that there is anything special about our being here other than the fact that every variable worked out right to end up with us. If any of those variables had not worked out, we would not be here wondering about where we came from. So there are a million possible other chances that life began the trek elsewhere in the galaxy. Some may have been stillborn. Some may have gotten as far as the amoeba...and some may have built rocket ships and a paid a visit.

Far too many people look at 13 billion years for the universe or 100 billion stars in one galaxy or 100 billion galaxies and just throw up their hands and say "this is too hard....where's my bible."

[Minimalist]

Fundamentalist vs. MC Hawking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

LOL. Funny stuff.

[seeker]

That's an opinion, Monk, and you're totally free to hold it. But we have no actual evidence to sustain it other than what is written in the OT and that is the record that is under discussion.

True. And this is where science can get selective depending on which side of the ideological fence one sits. For example. There is absolutely NO evidence of extra-terrestial life, even the most basic, unintelligent forms, and yet, many scientists believe life, not of this earth exists.

If one uses the kinds of arguments put forth by Dawkins to rebut the belief that God exists, one must totally reject the idea because there is not a single shred of proof. And so belief in E.T. becomes an act of faith.

So how are the rules of science applied? Its the old saying "lack of evidence..." True, the archaeological evidence is sparse which supports much of the OT, but as Seeker has pointed out earlier - much evidence remains untranslated, uninvestigated, and uninterpreted in private holdings or warehouses.

I think we have to start looking at probabilities. Is it likely that this planet is so unique out of the billions of planets like it in the universe that life only happens here?

With archaeology that question is really the only one that we can ask because the evidence is usually less available. I think you have to start wondering how it is that the biblical account is so consistently contradicted by the evidence. Once you leave the bible account out the evidence starts to seem a lot more clear as the likliehood that the history of the levat was really a story of a small and relatively poor region surviving the political machinations of the greaer states (Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome) around it

[kbs2244]

By it’s very nature Archeology has to be limited to the Earth. At the most to physical things from space hitting the Earth.

The OT has no such limitation. In fact it is full of Extra Terrestrials, visions, prophecies, and some history.

Stop trying to make it a history book. It was never intended to be one.

[Ishtar]

But I think we are starting to do some research on other planets, aren't we? Geology at the very least ....

[kbs2244]

Well, some do think we have photos of pyramids on Mars.

[Minimalist]

Stop trying to make it a history book.

I have never stated that it was. I consider it a poorly written book of fairy tales devised by primitives to explain their environment.

[Ishtar]

Stop trying to make it a history book. It was never intended to be one.

I think, KB, that the boot might be on the other foot.

It's the Judaeo Christian religionists who have been saying that the Bible reports historical fact. The archaeologists have been proving them wrong.

[Forum Monk]

I think you have to start wondering how it is that the biblical account is so consistently contradicted by the evidence...

Remarkably, archaeology is a modern science which did not emerge until the 1700s and then due largely to the investigative work of members of the Christian clergy. The Levant was not really open to exploration having endured the Crusades for over 200 years beginning around 1100. The Islamic presence was not about to let Europeans or any other group into Palestine to search for antiquities considering the justifiable impression that Christians hated Islam. (When you attack a people with the intention of taking their land which they occupied for a 1000 years under the banner of the cross and then brutally murder them, they tend to not forgive these atrocities very easily.) As a result archaeological exploration in the Levant did not begin in earnest, until the 18th century.

The texts of the bible had been translated into latin and modern languages very early, even prior to the Crusades. Herodotus, on the otherhand was not translated to latin until about 1450 and not to any modern language until about 1786, when Larcher translated his histories to French.

So when systematic archaeological exploration of the Levant began in the 18th century, the bible served as the guide to an impressive number of initial discoveries (though admittedly not always properly interpreted due mainly to lack of corroborating evidence - hey, it was a new science) and so early interpretations of the discoveries were based upon the textual evidence which lead to their discovery. In fact, much of the archaeological interpretation of the antiquities in Egypt was NOT done on the basis of the bible but rather the Histories written by Herodotus.

It seems you attempting to nail the coffin lid so to speak on the bible but to what objective? Are you defending archaeology or discrediting the bible?

[Minimalist]

(When you attack a people with the intention of taking their land which they occupied for a 1000 years under the banner of the cross and then brutally murder them, they tend to not forgive these atrocities very easily.)

Sadly, you are 101% correct. They do tend to hold a grudge.

[kbs2244]

But remember Ish:
I am not a literalist.
I believe the OT and the NT are full of symbolic prophesies.
Your questions about Daniel and Revelation should convince you of that.
Both parts are forward looking books for their time, not history books.
One was pretty much fulfilled 2000 years ago, and the other, depending on who you talk to, perhaps in the process of being fulfilled even as we type.
Anybody that tries to make history books of them has taken a wrong turn in their study of them.
The important thing about the Bible, both parts, is not what it says did happen, but what it says will happen.

[Minimalist]

Both parts are forward looking books for their time, not history books.

Provided that you buy the story put forward by "believers." I do not.

[seeker]

I think you have to start wondering how it is that the biblical account is so consistently contradicted by the evidence...

Remarkably, archaeology is a modern science which did not emerge until the 1700s and then due largely to the investigative work of members of the Christian clergy. The Levant was not really open to exploration having endured the Crusades for over 200 years beginning around 1100. The Islamic presence was not about to let Europeans or any other group into Palestine to search for antiquities considering the justifiable impression that Christians hated Islam. (When you attack a people with the intention of taking their land which they occupied for a 1000 years under the banner of the cross and then brutally murder them, they tend to not forgive these atrocities very easily.) As a result archaeological exploration in the Levant did not begin in earnest, until the 18th century.

The texts of the bible had been translated into latin and modern languages very early, even prior to the Crusades. Herodotus, on the otherhand was not translated to latin until about 1450 and not to any modern language until about 1786, when Larcher translated his histories to French.

So when systematic archaeological exploration of the Levant began in the 18th century, the bible served as the guide to an impressive number of initial discoveries (though admittedly not always properly interpreted due mainly to lack of corroborating evidence - hey, it was a new science) and so early interpretations of the discoveries were based upon the textual evidence which lead to their discovery. In fact, much of the archaeological interpretation of the antiquities in Egypt was NOT done on the basis of the bible but rather the Histories written by Herodotus.

It seems you attempting to nail the coffin lid so to speak on the bible but to what objective? Are you defending archaeology or discrediting the bible?

I'm defending scientific method against poor science. As you admit in your summary of the subject the text of the bible was used as a guideline early on, with the result that an impressive amout of evidence was uncovered and mostly misinterpreted. It created a paradigm in archaeology that lasts even now. There are still far to many people trying to find verification of the bible rather than actually doing the work and evaluating the evidence objectively.

As to discrediting the bible I think that were there truth in it nothing I have to say should be able to change that. The fact that biblical claims don't hold up to examination is not a result of anyone trying to discredit the bible, only a matter of examining the record to determine what actually happened in history.

[kbs2244]

Seeker:
Would you be willing to apply your rules of discorvery to the Global Warming question?