Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   biblical archaeology
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 128 (276793)
01-07-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
01-07-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Archaeology is very important.
jar writes:
No. Can't imagine where you got that idea.
Thanks for your help in the chat room and elsewhere. I got my speaker working.
Ok, I see, using your analogy was a stretch. However, would you concede that archeology has lent some support that King David existed around the time of the Biblical account?

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 01-07-2006 6:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 01-07-2006 8:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 121 by Jackie, posted 06-17-2006 2:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 128 (276794)
01-07-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
01-07-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Archaeology is very important.
Not yet. So far there's no real evidence that there was a King David or anything like a Kingdom. I do think it likely that there might have been some minor City Rulers that we later expanded into the Saul and David stories of the Bible. But even that is a streatch from any archaeological finds so far.
Trying to make the Bible a history or science text loses the purpose. It's there to teach us how to live. It matters not if the stories are true, contain but a grain or truth, are exagerated folktales or total myth, the meaning and message is still true.
This message has been edited by jar, 01-07-2006 07:29 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2006 8:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 9:28 PM jar has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 108 of 128 (276808)
01-07-2006 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
01-07-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Not quite
What is archeology? I defined it, according to my dictionary. Is there a problem with that?
Buz,
I recall reading that post but poking around in this thread I've not been able to find it again. IIRC is was a very general definition that mainly gave the subject matter.
The problem with Ron Wyatt and others is how they look for old stuff in that they are not being systematic in their studies nor are they subjecting their finds to peer review. As I recall in an old thread a claim was made that Ron said an unidentified archeologist said a wheel that he could not longer produce was egyptian. That is just the kind of thing that is not allowed in rigorous and properly done archeology.
Not only does the archeologist need to document the location in the dig but other specialist needs to verify the identification. And having done that, all they would have is an artifact identified as blah blah found at location XYZ. Other artifacts, other features could be added to build up a picture and perhaps support a claim that the site was say the crossing of the Red Sea, or so and so's Palace. All of the evidence and reasoning would be evaluated and debated by experts as well as anyone else interested.
If you are primarily a religious student of the Bible you need a Bible and some books and you make your own interpretations. Science is done differently. Even when there is some stunning sweeping insight such as E+MC^2 that insight is based on many many details, observations, mathmatical analysis etc.
Popular press focuses on the big conclusions, but theories are the supported by a network of facts, observations, and correlations. It's not just fossils that support ToE. It's genetics, geology, physics. Many fields, many studies. And the same with archeology.
Philosophy and religion can be engaged in without having to refer to many studies, complex data etc. Science is a different kind of activity and uses a different approach.
So it's not just that archeology studies old things, it's how those old things are studied that makes it valuable.
I don't know if this is what Brian would say. This is just my take on your question.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2006 8:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 128 (276825)
01-07-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
01-07-2006 8:20 PM


i really hate to point this out
Trying to make the Bible a history or science text loses the purpose
but kings and maybe samuel certainly are at least partly histories. they read like histories, with dates. the questions are really, how accurate they are (evidence clearly shows strong religious bias) and what they are histories OF (traditions, events, what?).

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 01-07-2006 8:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 01-07-2006 9:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 128 (276836)
01-07-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by arachnophilia
01-07-2006 9:28 PM


Re: i really hate to point this out
but kings and maybe samuel certainly are at least partly histories.
I don't have a big issue with that.
They read like other epic myths, histories of a peoples or an era. In addition, as you say, it depends greatly on what they are trying to say. They are classic Historical Novel, much like Dickens, or Steinbeck, Sir Walter Scott or Mark Twain might write.
The question was "have any of the recent archaeological finds supported the Biblical Historic accounts". My point is that putting too much emphasis on the archaeology and trying to force the Bible to be a history book diminishes the message, the theology.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 9:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2006 9:48 PM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 128 (276837)
01-07-2006 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
01-07-2006 9:45 PM


Re: i really hate to point this out
I don't have a big issue with that.
They read like other epic myths, histories of a peoples or an era. In addition, as you say, it depends greatly on what they are trying to say. They are classic Historical Novel, much like Dickens, or Steinbeck, Sir Walter Scott or Mark Twain might write.
well, not exactly. kings seems to be a more academic work. names, dates, places. it cites sources. but it's not totally a history, either. it does contain some obvious dramatization, and it does seem to be trying to convey a message of some kind (political...).
The question was "have any of the recent archaeological finds supported the Biblical Historic accounts". My point is that putting too much emphasis on the archaeology and trying to force the Bible to be a history book diminishes the message, the theology.
maybe, but biblical archaeology (the, uh, legit stuff) is a very interesting field.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 01-07-2006 9:45 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 128 (277087)
01-08-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
01-07-2006 8:05 PM


Re: Not quite
You're really reaching here. The real problem is that people are too willing to placew faith in fakes and frauds that supposedly confirm the BIble - while real archaeology causes serious problems for anyone taking the Bible as a completely reliable historical record.
Since you are discussing David, archaeology provides little evidence that he existed, no support for the claimed size and grandeur of his kingdom, none for a combined rule of Judah and Israel and so far it appears that if there were such a kingdom Samaria would be a more likely capital than Jerusalem.
On the other hand even though it has been reveaaled in this group that Ron Wyatt and his crew are ignorant and incompetent at history - to the point where they cannot even manage to read a popular level book accurately. That they are also incompetent at archaeology (the foolishness over the non-existent "land bridge" at Nuweiba, the lack of scale on the photographs, the use of a dowsing device as if it were a valid tool). And that they are prone to making grandiose and implausible claims which they - for some reason - are always unable to support. Anyone who takes these people as a credible source is displaying a gross bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2006 8:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 113 of 128 (277217)
01-08-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Buzsaw
01-07-2006 8:05 PM


Archaeology is...
Hi Buz,
Hi Brian. I didn't mean to ignore you in the chat room. I didn't know what I was doing, but had a pleasant visit with all you friendly folks there.
No probs Buz, I remmeber when I first used chat rooms I couldn't keep up with the speed of them. We'll chat again there some other time I hope.
What is archeology? I defined it, according to my dictionary. Is there a problem with that?
Archeology = the study and science of ancient people and cultures.
I'm not being deliberately awkward here, but your definition is more accurately applied to anthropology.
Archaeology is only the recovery of artefacts, caused by both human and natural activity.
It is true that many archaeologists have studied ancient people and cultures, and normally specialise in a certain culture or time period, but this skill is in addition to archaeology.
Archaeologists recover artefacts, after this it is open season on what has been recovered. The artefacts themselves are mute, they do not 'speak'. The artefacts are only given meaning and context by the mind of whoever is interpreting them. This is why we sometimes find huge disagreements between archaeologists and historians over the same artefact.
This is what we need to remember when we examine Wyatt's alleged discoveries, we need to remember that the artefacts he presents can be interpreted in many different ways.
What I see with Wyatt's finds are massive leaps in logic scattered with a few non-sequiturs. Take the so-called Noah's Ark, just imagine for a minute that this is actually Noah's Ark. Now, it does not automatically follow that the Bible narratives about Noah and his Ark thus become true, it takes much more than that. This may just mean that at one time someone built a huge boat, it doesn't even mean that this Ark and Noah's Ark are one and the same, and the rest of the Bible narrative needs to be supoprted from external evidence as well. Now, the Bible claims that the Flood was 4500 years ago approx, so for Naoh's story to be considered as accurate we need more than just some boat remains for the particulars of Noah's story to be credible. Think about it, does the finding of a ship in Turkey mean that everything alive on Earth died except what was in the Ark?
Same with the 'chariot wheels', they do not mean anything by themselves, they are mute, they are only given meaning and context by whoever is reporting on them. Chariot wheels in the Red Sea does not mean that there were Hebrews in Egypt, we need direct evidence of that to give that part of the story credibility. For all we know these chariot wheel may have been deposited there at anytime after they were made. They could even have been planted there by Wyatt, they could have been planted there by someone else to fool Wyatt for some reason!
As Bill Dever says(it escapes me where), archaeology is not very good at confirming things, but what it is very good at is disproving.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2006 8:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
alphablu82
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 128 (278102)
01-11-2006 11:13 AM


Biblical Archaeology

Please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Biblical Archaeology. Nothing in your post seems connevted to that at all.

Fossils that have been found have been discovered in a heap on the ground. They are scarred and chipped. This suggests that they were a result of rapidly moving water dumping them. Also many fossils have not been found intact unless they are in the bottom of water or mud.
For you interested in the Biblical answers there are accounts of the dinosaur in there. Job 40:15-19 talks of a huge beast. "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee, he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrappedd together. His bones are like strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is te chief of the ways of God; he that made him make his sword approach to him." God is talking to Job telling him that he made behemeth the dinosaur at the same time as he made Job. Humans.
There are also many other accounts of dinosaurs in the Bible. It lists the tanniyn or dragon, and leviathan. In Isaiah 27 it talks of the leviathan. No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26”get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1) Tanniyn is translated to dragon or sea monster from the original Hebrew. Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. La 4:3 Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. Sea monsters are the dinosaurs of the waters.
There are references to dinosaurs in the Bible. Just not with the same words in English.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-11-2006 04:24 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2006 4:10 PM alphablu82 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 128 (278212)
01-11-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by alphablu82
01-11-2006 11:13 AM


off topic
For you interested in the Biblical answers there are accounts of the dinosaur in there. Job 40:15-19 talks of a huge beast.
have a look at this closed thread: http://EvC Forum: Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?
There are also many other accounts of dinosaurs in the Bible. It lists the tanniyn or dragon, and leviathan.
תַּנִּין (taniyn) is literally "serpent." it's the animal that moses's staff turns into when he drops it before pharoah. i agree that based upon the description of לִוְיָתָן (livyathan) in job it is probably refering to הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים (ha-taniynm ha-g'dolim) of genesis 1 -- the "big serpents" that live in the water. "dragon" is a just an english way of saying the concept forwarded by "large snakes." but by tradition, livyathan is one of these taniynm, and there are only two. god killed the other one.
also important here is what the word means today. "livyathan" is modern hebrew word for whale. even in english we use "leviathan" to describe something big and usually whale-like.
here are some images i posted previously in this thread of jonah and the whale (which, btw, is not a whale in hebrew, but a "big fish")
Sea monsters are the dinosaurs of the waters.
there has never been an aquatic dinosaur discovered. dinosaurs and the marine reptiles of the mesozoic are both separate branches of reptiles.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-11-2006 04:10 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by alphablu82, posted 01-11-2006 11:13 AM alphablu82 has not replied

  
Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 128 (282257)
01-28-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
01-06-2006 12:14 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence Of Exodus Found
HI buz and thank you for the welcome.
I am not an expert folks.
Artifacts with links to Bible unearthed - Washington Times
Artifacts with links to Bible unearthed
http://www.bib-arch.org/Mazar.pdf
Did I find King Davids Palace?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2006 12:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 128 (299559)
03-30-2006 8:45 AM


Ebla Tablets
BAR Interviews Giovanni Pettinato
Original Ebla epigrapher attempts to set the record straight
By Hershel Shanks
BAR
BAR: Who were the scholars that made these historical connections?
P: David Noel Freedman. I am sorry, but it is very clear.
BAR: Anyone else?
P: No, I don’t know if anyone else made such a statement.
BAR: Are you referring to his dating of the Patriarchal Age to the third millennium?
P: Yes. Impossible. Impossible.
BAR: Well, what about the five Cities of the Plain that he relies on, or did rely on, when he thought that they were in the Ebla tablets. Originally it was thought that the five Cities of the Plain mentioned in Genesis appeared in a single Ebla tablet in the same order in which they appeared in Genesis.
P: I can say what I have said in the article which I published in Rivista Biblica Italiana: that in my view, cities mentioned in the Ebla tablets have names like those of the Cities of the Plain. In that article, I have written “Sodom, Gomorrah, etc.” That is all that I have written.b
BAR: Have you found the names of the other three Cities of the Plain in the Ebla Tablets?
P: I don’t know if I can say yes or no. On this point, wait. To Mr. Archi [the new chief epigrapher of the Italian Mission to Ebla], who claims that they are not there I answer: “If you want to find them, you must look more closely.”
BAR: I take it you think that you have found them?
P: Might. But it is not necessary for me to retract what I have written. Surely the five cities are not in the same tablet. I have never said that they were.
BAR: Have you said that orally?
Fixed URL and URL display length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-30-2006 08:54 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Brian, posted 03-31-2006 9:40 AM Jackie has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 118 of 128 (299777)
03-31-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jackie
03-30-2006 8:45 AM


Re: Ebla Tablets
Is there some point you wish to make?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jackie, posted 03-30-2006 8:45 AM Jackie has not replied

  
Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 128 (322605)
06-17-2006 2:52 PM



  
Jackie
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 128 (322609)
06-17-2006 2:53 PM


test

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024