THESIS: BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IS BUNKUM

[Guest]

Science" is, as you wrote, only a tool. But it is a tool that as often strips away the bindings of past principles and challenges the thinking person to adapt to realities. When a closed system refuses to accept the product of science, then the tool is useless.

you are assuming that science is the definitive answer machine and that anything outside of science can never be right. that is a false premise to stand upon for science is wrong more than it is right, plus the fact that it is designed to rarely provide an answer those that follow its path end up lost.

i will start and stick with the Bible for it provides the answers especially when science ignores the evidence at hand.

[Minimalist]

See why the ad hominem attacks are so much more fun, Der Lange?

[Guest]

But to the point: How would a "Biblical archaeologist" address findings of this sort? The evidence pretty much contradicts everything most "Biblical archaeologists" believe

no. the Bible does address peoples from other lands, as it establishes their origins and theorign of their languages long before they 'sailed' off to inhabit their new lands.

but even though the Bible's purpose is narrow, it is not a comprehensive guide to everything, since God has given us all minds to use and the power to use those minds freely it is how we learn the lessons that it teaches and how we make decisions that is most important.

now, i tend to agee with minimalist concerning those holy rollers who run around proclaiming every site and artifact is a holy thing. they do as much damage to the truth as finkelstein and dever. not every site is holy and not every artifact is religious, and they do not take the time to search and look for the truth but that doesn't mean that what the Bible says is untrue nor does it mean that because finkelstein and dever didn't find anything that the Bible is untrue.

or if someone decides to change the dates because they don't like the results does it mean the Bible is untrue. there is more to archaeology than taking people's word for it, despite their education and experience. you have to take into account their motivation, their purpose, their beliefs, their source of funding, etc. before you can get a good grasp of where these researchers are coming from and how they are going to conduct their work plus write their conclusions.

if you agree with them then your scrutiny is minimal and could lead others down a false trail. by the way minimalist, AGE OF A SOURCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH, something 40 years old can be true and valid. modernicity does not guarantee truth or that the truth will be told.

[Minimalist]

But to the point: How would a "Biblical archaeologist" address findings of this sort? The evidence pretty much contradicts everything most "Biblical archaeologists" believe

no. the Bible does address peoples from other lands, as it establishes their origins and theorign of their languages long before they 'sailed' off to inhabit their new lands.

And generally gets in serious historical and geographical trouble when it does. Like all 'creation myths; the bible is designed to tell it's own people where they came from. In this, it is not a unique specimen.

now, i tend to agee with minimalist concerning those holy rollers who run around proclaiming every site and artifact is a holy thing. they do as much damage to the truth as finkelstein and dever. not every site is holy and not every artifact is religious, and they do not take the time to search and look for the truth but that doesn't mean that what the Bible says is untrue nor does it mean that because finkelstein and dever didn't find anything that the Bible is untrue.

There are times when I wonder if you are just being dense or if you genuinely do not understand what they are talking about. It is not (and has never been) that they find "nothing." It is that they excavate at known sites (such as Jerusalem) and, in the time period when the bible claims there is a major capital of a great empire they FIND a miserable little village in a sparsely populated region. The idea that a small village could control a great empire is ludicrous but your problem is this: Once you stake out a position that the bible is the unerring word of god you are pretty much stuck with trying to defend every silly ass line because to concede one point means the whole house of cards comes down in a pile.

As far as Finkelstein's reports of archaeological surveys in the area think of it like this. A guy gives you a set of keys and tells you that his Porsche is parked in a certain garage on the 5th level in space #70. You go to the garage and find #70 on the fifth floor. Sitting there is a bicycle with a flat tire. You might double check the floor and space #. YOu might even go outside and make sure you are at the correct garage. However, once you have verified all that information you must come to the conclusion that the guy lied when he said he owned a Porsche and parked it there.

However, YOU keep trying to insist that the bicycle is really a Porsche.

or if someone decides to change the dates because they don't like the results does it mean the Bible is untrue. there is more to archaeology than taking people's word for it, despite their education and experience. you have to take into account their motivation, their purpose, their beliefs, their source of funding, etc. before you can get a good grasp of where these researchers are coming from and how they are going to conduct their work plus write their conclusions.

if you agree with them then your scrutiny is minimal and could lead others down a false trail. by the way minimalist, AGE OF A SOURCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH, something 40 years old can be true and valid. modernicity does not guarantee truth or that the truth will be told.

You are still desperately trying to see a Porsche when all that is there is a bicycle.

Arguing about Thera is pointless, no matter when it exploded. First of all, by 1500 the Egyptians had just finished chasing the Hyksos out of Egypt and were in the process of establishing control over Canaan. We have the Amarna letters showing the extent of such control as well as the names of Egyptian vassal states....none of whom are Israelite. Is this all a fraud meant to disparage your precious bible, too?

But for the sake of argument, let's say Thera did matter. I saw a documentary recently in which all manner of scientific explanations for the various plagues were explored...one of which included the Thera blast.
The proponent was at great pains to show that if the Israelites were fleeing along the coast when the drawback from the oncoming tidal wave occurred they would be able to cross a small bay before the Egyptians who would then be hit by the onrushing wave.

There are two obvious problems with this, one biblical and one scientific. First off, god supposedly told them to avoid the coastal route because of the Philistines....who weren't even there for another 4 centuries. The second problem is that the sequence of events is nonsensical.

1. Thera explodes generating a massive ash fall and tidal waves.
2. It takes roughly an hour for the tidal wave to hit the Egyptian coast line, which means the Israelites would have had to begin fleeing BEFORE the effects of the other plagues had even happened. There is no way to reconcile the discrepancy.


BTW, at the end of the documentary they mentioned that there is not a single shred of evidence for a historical Exodus.

[Guest]

There are times when I wonder if you are just being dense or if you genuinely do not understand what they are talking about. It is not (and has never been) that they find "nothing." It is that they excavate at known sites (such as Jerusalem) and, in the time period when the bible claims there is a major capital of a great empire they FIND a miserable little village in a sparsely populated region

the problem isn't with the Bible, it is with those who choose to apply the dating system, or decide to disbelieve the evidence.

AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY: helena, montana is a small town yet its capital building with its copper dome would send a message that it is also too opulant for such a city and from within its walls it gets to 'rule' its 'empire', the state of montana.

i lived in small towns of montana and there were people of wealth in them who built buildings that far exceeded the village's apparance and if excavated years later, archaeologists would have trouble placing those structures in the context of the size and wealth of the village

so size really has nothing to do with it, it is just another excuse used to discredit the Bible and itis that type of limited thinking that leads people to the wrong conclusions.

[Minimalist]

You are correct about one thing....you are the master of the faulty analogy.

In whatever manner Helena came to be the capital of the Great State of Montana (maybe they lost the toss?) I'm reasonably certain that Helenan armies were not dispatched to conquer the rest of the state. That is what is claimed by the nonsensical Davidic conquest tradition. All of Syria, part of Turkey, part of the Sinai and all of Transjordan conquered by the handful of shepherds who lived in a shithole little village? There is not so much as a potsherd indicating any Davidic Empire in any of those places that were allegedly dominated by "David." The whole thing was an invention of later writers looking to create a glorious history for their people to look back on. That is what the EVIDENCE shows. You have only FAITH to support your view and that is a poor substitute for evidence.

[Der Lange]

There is virtually NO genuine archaeology to support the basic Biblical version of "The Tower of Babel."

i do not think you can say especially in light of tthe following quote:

Eruptions of this size occur only once every few hundred years on earth. Although the dating of pottery supports the fifteenth century time frame for the Thera eruption, dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating supported by historical records place it at 1628/7 B.C.E. .

even though this quote is talking about thera, it represents the double standard, double mind of archaeologists. if the pottery, though accepted as proof in one area, disagrees with one's belief then the pottery is of no value, and so on.

people ('professional' archaeologists) dismiss evidence soley on the basis it disagrees with their thesis, whether they have proof or not. the biblical account provides all the answers we need , where did languages come from? where did all these different people get the same idea? where did they come from?

and to dismiss an ancient source filled with answers is just foolhardy and dumb. it is dismissed and ignored because to acknowledge the old testament menas you have to acknowledge the new. which most non-religious want to think about because it means they have to face the consequences of their actions and beliefs.

Usually I would not quote an entire post.

How you connect the tale of the Tower of Babel - a supernatural event in which people able to understand each other suddenly are divided by new languages - with the eruption of Thera is beyond me.

Then your discussion wanders on to attack archaeologists who are now disputing the date of the eruption of that volcano. And THEN you say the Bible answers all of that.

Archaeologist, you will have to provide more connective tissue for these disparate pieces of faith-based skeleton. I do not need more citations of chapter and verse from whatever edition of the Bible you use - instead please connect these external events logically to what you ae trying to say.

They simply are not related to each other internally.

I suppose you have something specific in mind that is not expressed when you write your posts. Please assume that we out here do not know what you are thinking.

To my knowledge, nothing in the Bible ever mentions the eruption at Thera. Perhaps there are consequential events which some connect to that eruption - one author says the seven plagues of Egypt during Moses' confrontation with Pharoah is attributable to Thera. That particular theory, which depends on an approximate date of 1375 BCE, does not connect to anything you wrote here - and may now be seriously questioned. (I do have trouble with ONE olive branch!)

But THAT has nothing to do with the story of the Tower of Babel.

So far all you have done is demonstrate more thoroughly how "Biblical archaeology" tries to fit the unconnected into some self-supporting tissue consistent with beliefs - and that is bunkum. Please fix your arguments and pay more attention so that you can coherently use them to show me wrong.

[Der Lange]

you are assuming that science is the definitive answer machine and that anything outside of science can never be right. that is a false premise to stand upon for science is wrong more than it is right, plus the fact that it is designed to rarely provide an answer those that follow its path end up lost.

i will start and stick with the Bible for it provides the answers especially when science ignores the evidence at hand.

So far I do not recall ever asserting science is infallible. In fact, I remember a section in this group where the issue was the conflict among scientists when they found they were wrong, and how the process of moving ahead provided many valuable lessons. And didn't I somewhere say that today's truths are usually tomorrow's errors?

This approach, of course, allows for gorwth, however halting and difficult.

The Bible, unchanging and fixed, in your method appears to prevent growth. I am certain that within the context of spiritual development many people find and use the Bible as their guide and tool - but anything outside the constrained realm of that book falls, like unplanted seed, to wither by the roadway. Not really much true growth then is possible unless people such as "Biblical archaeologists" can genuinely deal with what they find challenges their beliefs.

[Der Lange]

But to the point: How would a "Biblical archaeologist" address findings of this sort? The evidence pretty much contradicts everything most "Biblical archaeologists" believe

no. the Bible does address peoples from other lands, as it establishes their origins and theorign of their languages long before they 'sailed' off to inhabit their new lands.

Ooops. I have a bit of a full stop here. Are you saying that the australian aborigines were first named etc. in the Bible, and then they sailed off for the nether continent?

And likewise for Amerindians, Uighurs, Chin, etc.?

This is an entirely unsupportable argument in both Biblical content and in the farthest, farthest stretch of archaeological, anthropological, and paleontological imagination. If you seriously intend to defend this assertion - and here you have a chance to recant or correct an unfortunate error of construction - then I will agree that this conversation has not legitimate purpose.

For you will have totally, ultimately and without reservation have proved that "Biblical archaeology" is bunkum and further debate is entirely without benefit to anyone.

If in fact there is an error here and you can reasonably resolve it, i will tender an apology for my prior statement.

[Minimalist]

(I do have trouble with ONE olive branch!)

But its more than one olive branch, DL. (I've learned that you cannot give arch an inch or he'll jump all over you.)

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Apr ... ge.AK.html

This article, posted elsewhere on this site as well,

In pursuit of this time stamp, Manning and colleagues analyzed 127 radiocarbon measurements from short-lived samples, including tree-ring fractions and harvested seeds that were collected in Santorini, Crete, Rhodes and Turkey. Those analyses, coupled with a complex statistical analysis, allowed Manning to assign precise calendar dates to the cultural phases in the Late Bronze Age.

In the same article it goes on to say:

The new results were bolstered by a dendrochronology and radiocarbon study, led by Danish geologist Walter Friedrich and published in the same issue of Science, which dated an olive branch severed during the Santorini eruption and arrived independently at a late 17th century B.C. dating.

So Friedrich's olive tree is back up by Mannings' various C14 samples, not to mention the Danish ice core study from 1987,

This idea suffered a blow in 1987 when Danish scientists studying cores from the Greenland ice cap reported evidence that Thera exploded in 1645 BCE, some 150 years before the usually accepted date.

[Guest]

How you connect the tale of the Tower of Babel - a supernatural event in which people able to understand each other suddenly are divided by new languages - with the eruption of Thera is beyond me.

despite your intelligence, your powers of observation and perception need a lot of work. i never connected thera with the tower of babel. never intimated it nor put the too in the same sentence.

i think you need to study the words that i use more closely than the off hand way you are doing.

all you have demonstrated is the inability to read posts and the ability to plant suggestions that have no basis in fact.

sort of like the psychologist planting memories when no such thing happened. you infer way toomuch aout my posts and you are way off the mark.

And didn't I somewhere say that today's truths are usually tomorrow's errors?

then today's truths were never true and people arejust issuing lies when no truth has been found. that isn't science that is pushing a theory when nothing substantiates it.

Are you saying that the australian aborigines were first named etc

in looking at what you quoted, i never said named did i? stop confusing the issue, i said their origins and the origin of their languages which is in line with the Biblical account. i did not move passed that point

if you are going to discuss, do it honestly and not with your own agenda.

minimalist again rejects another example which means he only accepts sources from only his censored list of sources. such open-mindedness and what an open system of belief. your efforts only demonstrate how far you will go to avoid thinking about the other person's valid point

you and der lange need to get honest before you discuss anything.

[Minimalist]

And you need to get a clue.

[Der Lange]

How you connect the tale of the Tower of Babel - a supernatural event in which people able to understand each other suddenly are divided by new languages - with the eruption of Thera is beyond me.

despite your intelligence, your powers of observation and perception need a lot of work. i never connected thera with the tower of babel. never intimated it nor put the too in the same sentence.

i think you need to study the words that i use more closely than the off hand way you are doing.

all you have demonstrated is the inability to read posts and the ability to plant suggestions that have no basis in fact.

sort of like the psychologist planting memories when no such thing happened. you infer way toomuch aout my posts and you are way off the mark.

And didn't I somewhere say that today's truths are usually tomorrow's errors?

then today's truths were never true and people arejust issuing lies when no truth has been found. that isn't science that is pushing a theory when nothing substantiates it.

Are you saying that the australian aborigines were first named etc

in looking at what you quoted, i never said named did i? stop confusing the issue, i said their origins and the origin of their languages which is in line with the Biblical account. i did not move passed that point

if you are going to discuss, do it honestly and not with your own agenda.

minimalist again rejects another example which means he only accepts sources from only his censored list of sources. such open-mindedness and what an open system of belief. your efforts only demonstrate how far you will go to avoid thinking about the other person's valid point

you and der lange need to get honest before you discuss anything.

Archaeologisy, you are absolutely a master at hair-splitting. I offered to tender an apology if you corrected me about the substance of your statements. Your response has not earned that - rather, you have quibbled defensively without going to the content.

For example, your statement, as I quoted it, led me to ask how the Bible cound possibly have accounted for Australian aborigines and others. You have shaved that hair quite fine in first telling me I didn't pay attention to your comment and that the Bible does indeed have the answer.

I haven't seen it in many years of theological studies under some of the finest minds in the field. It isn't there.

If by this you refer to the story of the Tower of Babel, then you had my answer before - there is NOTHING THERE.

As for the adage that in science, today's truth is tomorrow's error - you apply a Thomistic concept to refute its validity. However, you completely avoided that discussion, which is that in science the possibility of error and correction exists. In Biblical archaeology, as in apparently any discussion with you, there is not. You live in a closed system that to you is perfect, complete, and incpabable of amendment or development. You are stuck in one place. That place greatly reminds me of the 12th century.

Since that is your faith and belief system, you are welcome to it - but please do not think that you can evangelize among us who perceive it quite differently and regard your critiques as uninformed, incompetent and irrelevant impositions.

You claim to own the "truth." We see that "truth" as error compounding error and your endless proselytizing as an attempt to spread gangrene.

I believe I have had it with you.

[tj]

and to dismiss an ancient source filled with answers is just foolhardy and dumb. it is dismissed and ignored because to acknowledge the old testament menas you have to acknowledge the new. which most non-religious want to think about because it means they have to face the consequences of their actions and beliefs.

All the Jews in the world are really going to be shocked when they learn of this archaeologist. How do you plan on breaking this mighty revelation to them? Just remember to be gentle.

Seriously, if you're going to spew theology, and it appears you are intent on doing so against all reason, at least spew some mildly informed theology. Please. It hurts.

[Minimalist]

I believe I have had it with you.

That's what the ignorant always rely on, DL. It's one of the reasons we ended up with the Texas Twit in the White House.