burning flames

Im reading the book right now. I dont FULLY trust the best of our current archeological knowledge, but it looks like it casts light on the old testament stories.


does it cast enough light to make people give up faith?



should they? in light of what the evidence is saying? or does this even matter to the believer.

Malachi151

yes

burning flames

sure you can say "how can the word of god be inacurate?"

and then a believer could say:

What does this term "word of god" mean for you? Sure the whole Bible is a message from God, in a very real sense. But the sense is not historical in the case of these OT stories. The meaning is elsewhere, and is deep, and powerful. Sometimes the meaning is found in how people believe incorrect things about God - like, for example, that God loves only a certain group of people, or hates another group of people. This is certainly hinted at in places, but cannot be, understood literally or historically the truth.

Roger Pearse

Such books have appeared steadily over a century and a half, but the only thing they have in common is the certainty with which doubtful conclusions are often asserted. The thing to do is to go back and see what publishers were pushing out 50 years ago, and 100 years ago. It breeds an awareness of the temporary nature of these kinds of books.

Huon

The only thing they have in common with the Bible is the certainty with which doubtful conclusions are often asserted.

Headache

Or you could say "Woooah! Here is a book I can use to justify whatever crap I want!"

Doug Shaver

It depends on what they're putting their faith in. Some people put their faith in God, and some put their faith in the Bible. For the former, discoveries like those reported in The Bible Unearthed are not a problem. For the latter, they are a big problem

Minimalist

When the OT says there was a great and glorious capital in the 10th century BC for David and Solomon and archaeology can find not a trace of it, you had better believe it is a problem for believers.

I know some who call Finkelstein the devil incarnate for casting doubt on their fairy tales. To his credit, Finkelstein seems not to care.

It is important to note that Finkelstein is merely re-capping 25 years of archaeological work done by himself and many other archaeologists. This is not a one-man bible-trashing show.


Recent C-14 studies released last April show that his "low chronology" is being sustained by science.

neilgodfrey

I found The Bible Unearthed quite conservative. Does not its argument rest largely on the presumption the historicity of the biblical story of Josiah's reforms? (See "Event 2" on my notes here.) I was waiting to see this book address the arguments of Philip Davies that point to the circularity of this presumption but never did.

I have found books by Lemche, Davies, Thompson, and others and Whitelam who gives an interesting history of the scholarship much more interesting with fewer hypotheses upon hypotheses and less circular assumptions.

Neil

Minimalist

LOL.

Only the "conservatives" would disagree with you.

Finkelstein is an archaeologist and he restricts his opinions to what archaeology can show. Thompson, Lemche, Davies and Whitlam are not archaeologists and they go a great deal further but, like the literalists, they don't have tangible evidence to sustain their opinions.

I have read Davies and while he makes some interesting points for the writing of the bible in the post-Exilic era (c 500 BC) he also seems to miss out on the obvious fact that there was a temple in pre-Exile Jerusalem which the Babylonians sacked. The priests of THAT temple would have had the same driving force as Davies' priests to create sacred literature which placed the priests at the center of religious observance. It's what priests always do. Isn't it?