THESIS: BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IS BUNKUM

[Der Lange]

In formal rhetoric, a "thesis" is the opening statement of a debate, or of an argument to be presented for debate. As most of us know, in the Hegelian dialectic, the "thesis" is followed by the "antithesis" or completely opposing argument, and succeeded (theoretically) by a "synthesis" that results from the conflict of the two sides. In the Hegelian model - which is generally applied to the progression of ideas or conditions throughout history, rather than to philosophy - the "synthesis" then becomes the new "thesis," and so on without end.

I must admit I do not expect to see a "synthesis" in this topic, nor do I expect much from some parties except posturing and lots of fake "citations" of "proof."

But here's the core of the "thesis" for discussion, and debate:

"Biblical archaeology" as practiced now is not a search for truth, but instead a campaign to find and fit physical evidence in support of a belief system. By definition, there is no room in "Biblical archaeology" for any findings that cast doubt on any element of the "scriptures" and thus there is no potential for growth, advancement of knowledge, or development of understanding of the past and any lessons to be obtained from the past. "Biblical archaeology" is, in fact, not archeaology. It is unscientific self-congratulation.

"Bunkum" is an old word, dates from about the period of the American Civil War, that connotes falsehood used to deceive. It was an earlier day's term for "consumer fraud." The word was often used to describe fabricated stories about sideshow freaks, the work of some of the more imaginative newspaper writers of the time, the claims of "snake oil salesmen," and the completely false "historical" tales spun by a great many different people who knew nothing at all about what they described, or made up wholly from thin air.

The Isle of Prester John was, by definition, bunkum. So were the Seven Cities of Cibola, although that did not deter true believers from spending their lives in a fruitless search for both locations.

In a more subtle and ultimately destructive sense, the Ptolemaic Universe, declared by religious authorities to be a universal truth supported by Biblical interpretation, is also bunkum.

Today we "de-bunk" such stories. This is the most modern survival of common usage of "bunkum."

Without taking on the entirely separate debate about the credibility of the Bible, the Q'uran, or the collected wisdom of Confucius, the issue of a science being driven, enclosed, and used solely for the purpose of proving a belief system that finds itself without flaw is a subject that just cries out to be de-bunked. The Vatican was no more right when it forced Galileo's recantation than the British prelate who solemnly declared he had calacuated the world's age according to the Bible and it was a few centuries short of 6,000 years. Both are bunkum and perversions of "science" - and thus claims to be "scientific" are themselves bunkum.

So, the summation of this thesis: Biblical archaeology is not true archaeology, it is not science, and the results of this activity are bunkum.

And now, back to our main topic of the day ....

[Minimalist]

Wow. I had to get almost to the end to find something with which to disagree. It will be minor but here goes.

Given the fact that biblical archaeology refers, generally, to archaeology done in a specific area it can be archaeology depending on the outlook and mindset of the archaeologist. So, if the archaeologist digs a hole with a predisposition to declaring anything that comes out of that hole to be some sort of 'holy relic' then I would not quibble with your definition, at all. There was an example of this in Jerusalem a year or two ago when some "archaeologist" attached to an orthodox settler group found a wall and promptly called it "David's palace." This is an example of the kind of charlatanism of which, I think, you speak and you get no argument from me. However, the less doctrinaire archaeologists who stepped forward (including Israel Finkelstein) to tell her that she was nuts cannot be lumped in which such zealots. There is a whole school of modern archaeologists who are digging and dating and casting doubt on bible fictions every day and in a place which would probably rather that they did not. Granted that Finkelstein is a moderate in the issue between the religious nut jobs and the true minimalist scholars but Finkelstein is not trying to prove or disprove the bible...merely to dig up the artifacts and see what story they tell.

BTW, welcome aboard.

[Beagle]

Very enjoyable post Der Lange. I have to do some reading about this. Thanks and Welcome Aboard.

[Guest]

So, the summation of this thesis: Biblical archaeology is not true archaeology, it is not science, and the results of this activity are bunkum.

it never ceases to amaze me how people think that they own science or archaeology and are at liberty to create the criteria for what is included in its study.

again we have another misguided and misinformed person who casts judgment upon that which he/she does not like thus it must be omitted from any discussion or investigation when the only problem it brings with it is that it makes those whodo not believe UNCOMFORTABLE and makes them realize they must consider something that is beyond their control.

also we see how those who do not like the Bible like to practice censorship when in reality in archaeology they cannot escape religion, religions or the Bible. case in point: stonehenge, possibly built by druids. who are the druids--a religious order. mayan pyramids, what were they used for- religious sacrifice. how did the mayans and the egyptians conceive of the same type of construction? where did they get the same idea---the tower of Babel or the account in the Bible.

you can't escape it no matter how hard you try or seek to bar those who have every right to express their position and belief. now in my case, i do not use the Bible very often but those researchers who are normally accepted in these type of pages as their work has uncovered many things that need to be evaluated in terms of scriptures not just the ice age.

it would not be fair nor just to eliminate those who believe the Bible, for archaeology is filled with it and their outcries for omittance only damages the credibility of those who participate sans religious representation. why? because they are eliminating discovered archaeological data and are assessing the past with incomplete information or insight thus they are depriving others of a subject that needs to contemplate all material from all points of view.

[Der Lange]

Without taking on the entirely separate debate about the credibility of the Bible, the Q'uran, or the collected wisdom of Confucius, the issue of a science being driven, enclosed, and used solely for the purpose of proving a belief system that finds itself without flaw is a subject that just cries out to be de-bunked.

"Archeaologist," I have read your material on this forum and place you quite firmly among those who approach "Biblical archaeology" as a system that exists only to serve your ends and prove your point.

I concede to Minimalist the point that some people use the Bible - and other various holy books - as source material for clues about the past. My post did not address that issue.

Nor did my post attack the Bible, the Q'uran, or other scriptures. You unfortunately trapped yourself when you responded as you did. You ASSUMED that was the point even though the language was quite specific.

Those who practice any science, archeaology or physics or whatever, solely to fluff up a closed system of belief are not practicing science. Their work is bunkum.

Work on THAt idea a while.

[Minimalist]

stonehenge, possibly built by druids.

Stonehenge predates the Druids in Britain. In fact, the problem with Stonehenge is that it predates any known civilization in Britain which could have assembled the manpower and other resources to build it. THAT is the mystery of Stonehenge. In a very real sense it suffers from the same complaint that Egyptologists make about Robert Schoch's observation that the sphinx was built between 5-7,000 BC. They claim that there was no civilization around to build it yet there it is, weathered by rainwater.

[Minimalist]

Those who practice any science, archeaology or physics or whatever, solely to fluff up a closed system of belief are not practicing science. Their work is bunkum.

BTW, "bunkum" is a more polite word than 'bullshit.'

[Leona Conner]

"mayan pyramids, what were they used for- religious sacrifice. how did the mayans and the egyptians conceive of the same type of construction? where did they get the same idea---the tower of Babel or the account in the Bible."

Arch, please explain the connection between the Tower of Babel and the Mayans. I'm terribly confused. The time difference and locations are so off as to make it impossible that the Mayans would have read about Babel in the Bible and copied it.

Or is this just another straws in the wind idea of yours.

[Minimalist]

Arch, please explain the connection between the Tower of Babel and the Mayans.

[Guest]

I have read your material on this forum and place you quite firmly among those who approach "Biblical archaeology" as a system that exists only to serve your ends and prove your point.

thats the problem, you place me. you don't know how i view archaeology then.

You unfortunately trapped yourself when you responded as you did

sorry i didn't trap myself, just pointing out the common error all those who do not bel;ieve make. they think they have the right to define science and get a say about who and what is studied and they don't.

it is a fallacy that they believe they can determine what is science and what isn't. science is only a tool nothing more.

Those who practice any science, archeaology or physics or whatever, solely to fluff up a closed system of belief are not practicing science. Their work is bunkum.

this is where you are wrong. those of us who have a belief also know that 'we shall know the truth' and it is those outside of that system who wander around stumbling in the datk because they have no direction. it is not wrong to study archaeology under a closed system or nor is it wrong when those studies provide an answer that those outside of that system refuse to acknowledge.

those outside the closed system think they have the sole right to determine what the dates are, what the artifacts are saying and so on. that is wrong and leads to wrong conclusions.

the mere fact that you call the conclusions of a closed system bunkum demonstrates your inability to regard alternative theories because it goes against what you think MAY have happened without regard to the fact that you are the one in error and not the reverse.

you accuse me of using archaeology solely for the purpose to serve my own ends well not only do i disagree with you i have to turtn that accusation upon yourself, especially if you reject the Bible and follow the evolutionary path. your all doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing.

your refusal to acknowledge a ancient source tells me that you have a closed system and you will do anything to keep that closed system intact no matter how wrong you are or how many changes to your theory you have to make..

i have shown many times the fallibility of science and have provided evidence supporting the Bible but it boils down to what you want to believe. thus if you do not want to believe the Bible, then you willbe like minimalist who rejects everything but what he wants to hear. that isn't science nor is it archaeology.

so don't come in here with your superiority complex and self-righteousness because you really don't know anything especially if you are running around your whole life looking for the truth and it is staring you in the face. what a waste of a life.

i come here for discussion and if i don't agree with you that is because i have my own opinion, the same as you and i am allowed to have my own viewpoint. just because you don't like it does it give you any right to insult me, my position or beliefs.

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.

[Guest]

please explain the connection between the Tower of Babel and the Mayans. I'm terribly confused

if you are confused then you are listening to the wrong dating system. the mayans came well after the disporia from Babel. location has nothing to do with it, being dispersed indicates that all people are invaders to their new lands.

but then again you would have to believe the Bible over science also to have it make sense. most people forget that there was a previous civilization prior to Babel's time (not atlantis) and that some of the discoveries made today, where we can not find the name of the builder, etc., could possiblty stem from that civilization.

the Bible, as an ancient source, provides many clues and answers especially in the verse, "there were men of renown" (slight paraphrase). in other words, the previous civilization had men who did great things, thus it stands to reason that they built great structures which may not have been totally destroyed in the Flood.

Ryan and Pittman may have stumbled across remnants of that society when they discovered buildings buried under the black sea. but it all depends on what you believe, if you don't believe the Bible then you will chase after any theory that may seem plausible but you would never find the answer because you are not looking in the right direction.

what Ryan and Pittman have done is discover an indication to the answer to the question many non-believers ask--what happened to the water? now we know that the water did not all go away but helped change the geography of the earth.

[Minimalist]

Did you get all that, Leona?

[Guest]

Did you get all that, Leona?

you can never stay silent can you?

[Leona Conner]

As usual you have managed to twist things around to fit your beliefs. Since the Egyptian pyramids were built around 3000 b.c.e. and the Tower of Babel c. 2300 b.c.e. how could the Mesopotamians have had an influence on them. Also, man was in the new world for at least 10,000 years before the Tower was built. Archaeologist are not sure just when the Mayans started to build their pyramids because they built newer and larger ones over the remains of older ones, but so far they are given a date of having been started about 2000 b.c.e., possibly sooner.

The reason for the pyramid shape is quite simple. If you wanted to build high, you built each succeeding step or stage smaller than the one below it. Structurally, for an architecture of mass, it permits the achievement of greater height than a purely vertical wall could.

I think that the Mesopotamians must have taken a vacation in Egypt.

Once again you have posted BUNKUM!

[Minimalist]

Did you get all that, Leona?

you can never stay silent can you?

Not when you are making a fool of yourself, I can't.