--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Your post, on the other hand, was totally devoid of content except for your attack on the writer as being a biased source.

rodahi: Please point out how any of my "post" is in error.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I pointed out that your post was content free, just like this one is content free.

Translation: "There was no error. I, Nomad, was just spouting off."

Nomad: Since you appear to be unwilling to offer a thoughtful critique of the review beyond labelling it as biased, your interest here was in spouting off and running.

Since you didn't respond to my suggestion that you retract your disparaging remarks, I presume you wish to ignore anything that might be unpleasant to you. Obviously, your only interest here is spouting off and running from the unpleasant.

rodahi

Ish,

I wholeheartedly agree that no book on any kind of scientific investigation is ever written in stone. I hold books on archeology to the same standard as I would books on physics and biology. New discoveries and new experiments are always changing things. Controversy abounds on every subject, especially one as hotly contested as religious belief. That both sides of this debate would be biased to their discoveries is absolutely no surprise to me. The theists have alot to lose, athiests have alot to gain. Both sides will press any advantage they feel they have, and both sides will also zealously attack where they are weakest. All I have seen while watching the debate here, and reading critiques on this book is what I would expect to see when both sides are biased. Frankly I'm not surprised. The only way I can arrive at the truth is to do as much research as I can on the current facts, and try and draw tentative conclusions based upon the best modes of thinking the scientific method allows.

Having actually read the book in question, it does raise some startling issues that no reviewer has dealt with yet, and the outlook for biblical literacy still doesn't look good.

Actually, seeing yet another commercial for the Miss Cleo as I write this, I think she holds all the answers. I'm pretty sure this is the case, because Miss Cleo is keepin' it real.

Toto

His silence was deafening? I was sure I heard him snickering in the background there. Maybe that was someone else.

Oh come on. That quote gives it all away.

Actually, there is such a book (although Dever does not list it), and I have offered it in this thread. It is called Who Wrote the Bible? and is authored by Richard Elliott Friedman.

Nomad, Carrier, as far as I can see, is correct. Friedman's book came out in '87 (Summit Books), and was reprinted in 1997. So Carrier's claim that the 1990s are bereft of such books would hold up, no? My source is G. Archer's dismissive review below:
http://www.equip.org/free/DW035.htm

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 24, 2001).]

Carrier's rebuttal should've made it very clear to you that Dever was not misrepresented in the book. I don't want to be rude, but try reading it again.

Nomad, isn't this the same as saying, "Millions of Christians can't be wrong?" Well, we know that kind of reasoning doesn't look good for Christians, what with all those some-odd billion or so Chinese buddhists. I can understand why Carrier didn't dignify this with a response. People, even lots and lots of people, have been wrong before. They'll be wrong again.

The Bible Unearthed does a good job of building a strong case for the Hebrew Bible being mostly propaganda. It is entirely believable. Now, if the evidence does indeed support their hypothesis, it is moronic to continue to deny it. The beauty of science is that we are forced to rely on the evidence, and not personal opinion or belief. Finkelstein could be dead wrong, or he could be right on... the only way we'll know is if the evidence backs up his claims.

That review is of the 1st edition of the book. The one that I just purchased was updated and revised specifically to account for the latest archaeological finds and discoveries, and caused Friedman to revise his views on a number of issues, in particular the identity of the author of "D". Friedman continues to hold that the United Kingdom of Saul, David and Solomon did actually exist, and finds none of the newest evidence compelling enough to reject that view.

Nomad

I feel like I am in the middle of an argument between blind people talking about an elephant.

Sentinel, have you read anything besides The Bible Unearthed, especially something that presents counter arguments to what this book says? My experience has been that a book almost always looks compelling until we read some others that offer alternative points of view and interpretations of the data. I do not have sufficient expertise on the Old Testament and ancient Near East history to comment on these findings, but I would be loathe to draw conclusions based on one popular work, no matter who wrote it.

Nomad

I have to agree with Nomad. I think that if you read some of Finkelstein's peers, you'll find a little more wrong (or at least questionable) with The Bible Unearthed.

Check out the link I provided for some of the scholars.

I also know that there are other scholars that are very conservative and say that Dever, Finkelstein, and others are dismissing the OT accounts too easily. A lot of the more liberal conclusions rest on "silence" of archaeological evidence. Personally, I tend to side with the more conservative scholars. I do not in any way see the OT as propaganda. I see it as a history of Israel.

Turtonm, just out of curiosity, do you know much about Gleason Archer? I just found it interesting to see you quoting such a conservative scholar.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 24, 2001).]

Yeah, I know exactly what his position is. His was just the first site I bumped into.

Michael

Would anybody care to actually read my posts? I don't see any point in continuing if Nomad and Ish won't take a minute and try to understand what I've been talking about.

If either of you can manage a response to my posts that have anything to do with what I'm talking about, I'll continue in this conversation.