THESIS: BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IS BUNKUM

[Guest]

and the Tower of Babel c. 2300 b.c.e.

where did you come up with that date? i have never seen that in all my studies. talk about twisting the facts.

[Der Lange]

your problem is, you want me to be like you; stumbling around in the dark. well sorry to disappoint you, i know where the truth lies and i will follow it.

"It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness."

Insisting on exclusive ownership of "truth" and rejecting any information that confronts "revealed truth" is like blowing out the candle.

What a shame.

Dispassionate science seeks truth but understands that today's "truth" may be seen as yesterday's error. And while so many debates among scientists about new findings that challenge past understandings show us that error dies with difficulty, die it does. But the course of that passage is itself a lesson in thoughtful consideration of information and interpretation of its meaning. And on occasion the debates, acceptances and rejections, and record of struggles with "accepted wisdom" teach us a great deal about the minds and principles of those who take part in that struggle.

One lesson that history has shown us is how, over and over again, those committed to closed systems of belief (this has nothing to do with religion, per se - there are many whose closed systms of belief are secular) leave themselves in darkness when a candle was lit.

"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.

And the result of those who pretend to practice science in such a way is, regrettably, bunkum.

[Der Lange]

This link is to a story about the new presentation of what is considered one of Humanity's oldest forebears. This is NOT a product of "Biblical archaeology," nor is it possible to connect this in any way to that practice. It comes from a region entirely outside the scope of Biblical studies - from an area that was, in fact, entirely unknown and therefore unaccounted-for in in any Biblical material.

(Hmmm, now here's an unintended consequence: What DOES "Biblical archaeology" have to say about the existence of other lands, other people, other forms of life and geology never even imagined by the authors of what is in the Bible?)

But to the point: How would a "Biblical archaeologist" address findings of this sort? The evidence pretty much contradicts everything most "Biblical archaeologists" believe. And, please - let us not wander off into a debate about evolution. That truly is not the point.

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/index.ph ... Id=3224504

[Minimalist]

and the Tower of Babel c. 2300 b.c.e.

where did you come up with that date? i have never seen that in all my studies. talk about twisting the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

Ziggurats were a form of temple common to the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians of ancient Mesopotamia.The earliest examples of the ziggurat date from the end of the third millennium BCE and the latest date from the 6th century

Thus, 2300 BC would be pretty well approaching the end of the third millenium BC!

There are 32 ziggurats known at, and near Mesopotamia. Four of them are in Iran, and the rest are mostly in Iraq. The most recent to be discovered was Sialk, in central Iran.

One of the best preserved ziggurats is Choqa Zanbil in western Iran, which has survived despite the devastating eight year Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's in which many archeological sites were destroyed. The Sialk, in Kashan, Iran, is the oldest known zigurrat, dating to the early 3rd millennium BCE. Ziggurat designs ranged from simple bases upon which a temple sat, to marvels of mathematics and construction which spanned several terraced stories and were topped with a temple.

Thus, not only is the date confirmed but there were multiple ziggurats (not one) and far from falling down most of them are still standing. The bible story is thus simply stupid and an attempt by primitive, backward, nomads to explain things in their environment which were so far out of the realm of their understanding that they had as much chance of comprehending them as your dog does of understanding how a car works.

[Minimalist]

(Hmmm, now here's an unintended consequence: What DOES "Biblical archaeology" have to say about the existence of other lands, other people, other forms of life and geology never even imagined by the authors of what is in the Bible?)

Oh, this should be good.

[Leona Conner]

Arch, first I Googled the net and got more than I could read. So I picked 6 or so and they all gave dates between 2300 and 1900, so I went to Encarta and Encyclopaedia Britannica they both said early 3rd cen b.c.e. So I figured 2300 was about as close as anyone could sget, unless they were there.

BTW, I don't twist facts, when they are true there is not need to twist them.

[Guest]

don't twist facts, when they are true there is not need to twist them.

never have i seen such early dtes for the tower ofbabel. and it would be impossible for the pyramid to be built before it unless they were built pre-flood.

knowing egyptian dating practices and how hard they hold onto a date whether they are right or wrong i am not surprised that they would date the pyramids prior to Babel.

babel would undermine their claim to be the one of the oldest societies on earth.

[Minimalist]

Just face reality, arch. The pyramids were built by Eqyptians and the ziggurats were built by Mesopotamians and neither society gave a flying fig about your goddamned bible.

[Guest]

Just face reality, arch

i do fce reality and there is no possible way that thepyramids were first. i think it is funny that you feel you have to immediately respond to every post i make. as if you are trying to cover my name. what are you afraid of if my name shows up on the board?

[Guest]

first I Googled the net and got more than I could read.

i yahooed it to double check and guess what...not one site gave a date especially as exact as you are saying. even wikipedia would not date it.

The only indication of the time at which the Tower of Babel was erected, we find in the name of Phaleg (Genesis 11:10-17), the grandnephew of Heber; this places the date somewhere between 101 and 870 years after the Flood

The chronology one derives from most English Bibles, which are translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, places the time of Peleg only about 100 years after the Flood. This is probably incorrect. Barry Setterfield dates Peleg as living 530 years after the Flood, using the Vorlage Text and the Septuagint (LXX)

The date of its foundation is still disputed

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/TowerOfBabel.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/babel.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15005b.htm

these are just samples and the url's are reversed in order from the quotes. as i have stated, i have never seen a date for the tower of Babel.

[Minimalist]

Just face reality, arch

i do fce reality and there is no possible way that thepyramids were first. i think it is funny that you feel you have to immediately respond to every post i make. as if you are trying to cover my name. what are you afraid of if my name shows up on the board?

I downloaded and installed a "Bullshit Detector." For some reason, every time you post it goes off.

[Minimalist]

as i have stated, i have never seen a date for the tower of Babel.

How about because, just like Jesus and the Exodus there was no Tower of Bable.....just a story made up by the priests.

That seems to be the most realistic explanation to me.

[Der Lange]

Let's back down a little on the ad hominem stuff. When I critiqued "Archaeologist," it was on content and not whether the Bible has any validity or not. I have my beliefs; they do not comport with many others'. It is not up to us (including archeologist) to dictate what one should believe; I will, however, certainly object to fantasies being proclaimed in the name of "science" when the very facts contradict the interpretations forced upon them.

I still have difficulty that the poster has a right to the title he/she claims because a real archaeologist would not be so close-minded - even if the "club" indeed tends to be more conservative and self-important than it should.

On the other hand, posts by Minimalist and Leona have in many cases raised perfectly good points that have been answered with "my source is better than your source" stuff - precisely the same petty squabbling I daily see among practicing archaeologists, historians and others who haunt my professional realm.

Let's take one little example. There was the bit about the Egyptians' claim to have the "oldest civilization." Recent scholarship dates the rise of that civiliation to approximately 4,500 BCE - give or take a couple of hundred years, I am not going to play the game, guys. Other scholarship dates the first Phoenician settlement at around 2,500 BCE. The founding or the city of Ur, on the other hand - at least according to the atlas of archaeology - was as a farming settlement around 4100 BCE. By about 2500 BCE it was a major center. Sometime between then and 2100 BCE, a major ziggurat was built there (if not already in place by 2500 BCE) - because in 2100 BCE, after disastrous floods, it was being rebuilt. Now, this is important to some people because apparently Ur was the birth city of Abraham.

There are numerous sources for dates of these events. They will inevitably vary according to which report is the most recent, or is presented by someone who may wish to make a point. Still the general range is not all that great as a rule.

Quibbling over perhaps a few hundred years' worth of dating is usually - not always - hair-splitting.

What might interst us in this chat is how - and if - any of the archeaology in the Middle East confronts reputed biblical "truth." That's a more productive chat here than throwing old mud bricks at each other.

[Der Lange]

There is virtually NO genuine archaeology to support the basic Biblical version of "The Tower of Babel." The tale may be a kind of allegory, because it is clear there were multiple invasions, conquests, and movements of people in the region. Many did not speak the language, or even a relative of the language, of the settled peoples of Mesopotamia. And the region was a gathering place of many peoples traveling for trade, from distant places, who did not speak either the local language or those of other visitors. There is VAST evidence of that.

[Guest]

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.