Archaeologica.org

seeker wrote: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.

I disagree with you seeker. As far as I know there is not a major academic institution conducting research or exploration with the goal of proving the bible (a few bible colleges or private organizations notwithstanding). Since archaeology is comprised of uncovering first and interpretation second, perhaps you are seeing errors in the interpretations of individuals (if you are an accredited archaeologist you may rightly criticize their interpretations based on your own analysis of the evidence and their work). Interpretation may be colored by world-views. Mine is and perhaps yours as well. But in science there is a peer review process and there has been a major paradigm shift in interpretation, especially in the last 20 years or so. There are also general schools of thought which are at times in opposition to one another. I suppose you favor one school of thought or interpretation over another. Its your perogative. I don't know your background but I would venture to say there are some people who been doing the work for a long time, who have examined the artifacts in their own hands and who disagree with you as well.

As to discrediting the bible I think that were there truth in it nothing I have to say should be able to change that.

I agree with you on this statement.

http://archives.sbts.edu/CC_Content_Pag ... ID,00.html

William Foxwell Albright was an archaeologist who served as professor of Semitic languages at Johns Hopkins University and senior editor of the Anchor Bible series from 1956 until his death in 1971

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

Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to, and sheds light upon, the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It was given its theoretical framework, and enjoyed its most influential period, in the early to mid 20th century through the influence of William F. Albright; the American "biblical archaeology" school which he founded had a profound influence on both biblical scholarship and evangelical theology of the time, cementing the view that archaeology had demonstrated the essential truth of the Old Testament narrative, especially that part relating to the Biblical Patriarchs, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan. This consensus was overturned in the 1970s, when Albrightian "biblical archaeology" was largely superseded by processual and post-processual archaeology, which sees archaeology as an anthropological rather than a historical discipline. Despite this, the reliance of American field excavation on denominational support has meant that the Albrightian paradigm continues to influence contemporary archaeology in the region.

I doubt that seeker is arguing for a continuing religious domination of the field (although he is certainly free to speak for himself) but it is true that there are (usually) American and (usually) Baptist seminarians digging over there who still pronounce every rock they find to be something that Moses pissed on.

Nonetheless, the damage was done in the early part of the 20th century by people like Albright who had a bible-based agenda.

Minimalist wrote:Nonetheless, the damage was done in the early part of the 20th century by people like Albright who had a bible-based agenda.

What damage? It sounds as if no one could reach a conclusion unless Albright approved it. Albright had the most publicity, the most money and most influence because of those things. And as science has and continues to do, it progresses. Now Finkelstein and Dever to a lesser degree get the press and 60 years from now our grandchildren will be talking about their misguided interpretations and some will claim, they damaged the science of archaeology or hindered its progress.

We are seeing the same shifts in Clovis-first thinking in the west. It is the prevailing interpretation of finds, anything which does not fit the mold is rejected by mainstream archaeology but new advances are showing the conventional model needs revised and is already being updated. So in 20 years they will be saying clovis-first hindered the progress of archaeology in the western hemisphere. Its really how science works. Other paradigms being questioned: big bang, evolution, dinosaur killer asteroid, human/neanderthal cohabitation. Good models and theories stand up through time and as they do they gain strength. Then when new information chips away at the model lots of hand wringing and complaining occur (mainly because research money is about to shift from one point of view to another).

In my short lifetime I have seen many models of paleotology, cosmology, archaeology, biochemistry, anthropology, etc, bite the big one.

Have you considered that had men like Albright not declared the bible to be "true" it would not now have to be declared "false?'

That's what I mean by 'damage.'

Besides, theories can be surpassed by better theories but how many times have they gone backwards to answers they once had? Put another way, how many fundies would be willing to go to a doctor whose latest medical book was published in 1911?

kbs2244 wrote:Seeker:
Would you be willing to apply your rules of discorvery to the Global Warming question?

I think that, if you examine the question of global warming you'll find that its discovery was because of the use of scientific method which is all I'm advocating.

Forum Monk wrote:

seeker wrote: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.

I disagree with you seeker. As far as I know there is not a major academic institution conducting research or exploration with the goal of proving the bible (a few bible colleges or private organizations notwithstanding). Since archaeology is comprised of uncovering first and interpretation second, perhaps you are seeing errors in the interpretations of individuals (if you are an accredited archaeologist you may rightly criticize their interpretations based on your own analysis of the evidence and their work). Interpretation may be colored by world-views. Mine is and perhaps yours as well. But in science there is a peer review process and there has been a major paradigm shift in interpretation, especially in the last 20 years or so. There are also general schools of thought which are at times in opposition to one another. I suppose you favor one school of thought or interpretation over another. Its your perogative. I don't know your background but I would venture to say there are some people who been doing the work for a long time, who have examined the artifacts in their own hands and who disagree with you as well.

This is a refrain that has been spouted since the medeival period. In those days science and religion were separate but scientists were tortured or killed when their conclusions disputed religious doctrine. After the Enlightenment the more brutal forms of persuasion gave way to more subtle methods like pulling funding from people who were going in directions that were considered problematic.

Archaeologists who questioned the biblical story simply rarely got into positions where they could have much influence. There was a lot more money to be made supporting the status quo than there was in telling people the painful truth. Its really a testimony to the overwhelming nature of the evidence against the biblical story that any paradigm shift happened at all

Forum Monk wrote:

As to discrediting the bible I think that were there truth in it nothing I have to say should be able to change that.

I agree with you on this statement.

That's good, at the end of the day the evidence speaks for itself.

That's good, at the end of the day the evidence speaks for itself.

If only that were true.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

My question about Global Warming was because the idea that it due to human activity is based on a “consensus” of scientists.
But science is not a “consensus” study.
The facts may very well contradict the “consensus.”
If the facts are about global warming, the agreement between archeological backed up history and the Bible, or back side of the Moon doesn’t matter.
Just because it is the currently accepted “scientific” idea doesn’t mean it is correct.
Ask Galileo.

So, let's take that for a given just for the sake of argument, kb.

Using those same criteria how logical is it to conclude that a bunch of stories produced by a culture of ignorant goat herders in the Iron Age (or before) is correct?

Ignorant by whose standards?
We have talked a lot about how conceited modern man is as to his "advanced knowledge” compared to ancient knowledge.

Of basic scientific principles.

I stand by my choice of words.

seeker wrote:Archaeologists who questioned the biblical story simply rarely got into positions where they could have much influence. There was a lot more money to be made supporting the status quo than there was in telling people the painful truth. Its really a testimony to the overwhelming nature of the evidence against the biblical story that any paradigm shift happened at all

Fundamentally, seeker, its not a biblical problem. Its a politcal one and continues today, unchecked in many fields of study; most of which have absolutely nothing to do with the bible or its teachings.

If the Judeo Christian church had this great choke hold on science, why are children learning about evolution, big bang, the 30 billion year old universe, a heliocentric solar system, etc? The middle ages and inquisition were a long time ago. Why is it only archaeology seemed incapable of withstanding the Judeo-Christian crusade of misinformation until recently? The fact is, much research was conducted by men and women who were and are Christian or Jewish. They studied their finds and interpretated them according to their knowledge and experience. Today some are re-examining their work and positing other interpretations. It does not diminish the contributions of those pioneers and early researchers in any way. They have damaged nothing and they have not hurt science.

In my opinion, the reason we are seeing new opinions and ideas being cutoff and repressed in every field of research is because, reputations are at stake, tenure, money, fame, etc. It is a human problem, a political problem, not a religious one. We have been discussing its impact on this board for a long time.

why are children learning about evolution,

Because of the Enlightenment which was itself a reaction to several centuries of religious warfare which tore Europe apart. This county was founded with a separation of Church and State because of the example set in Europe the century before. It was a good idea then and it is a better idea now.

Minimalist wrote:Because of the Enlightenment which was itself a reaction to several centuries of religious warfare which tore Europe apart. This county was founded with a separation of Church and State because of the example set in Europe the century before. It was a good idea then and it is a better idea now.

It is something I whole-heartedly support!

I wish there were more of you, sir.