Solitary Man

Such a thing though would have drastic consequences for Biblical studies. It would really turn the world on its head.

Tars Tarkus

After all the work my team and I did to find this tomb? Of course publish it.

Toto

But it would not prove the existence of god or undermine metaphysical naturalism in any way.

jeremyp

Except perishing will not happen. If you discovered real evidence of the Exodus, you'd be the most famous archaeologist in the World for a while.

I'm an atheist, but if I found incontrovertible evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, I'd still publish. I'd also stop being an atheist.

mountainman

Hey Tigers!

I am having problems determining which publisher to vote for.
I do not believe in a religion's "God" but I do believe
that the universe itself is alive, and that in this sense
I would defend a theist's perspective.

I would definitely publish. Ancient history is contributed
to be all publications and represents the work of collective
humanity. There is no question that I would publish.

The question is the question of theism.
So I have not yet voted.
Nice poll and best wishes,


Pete Brown
"Is Lithargoel Jesus?"

Doug Shaver

I voted on the assumption that "For" and "Against" meant "Yes" and "No."

Yes, I would publish. I have no fear of adjusting my worldview to accommodate the facts, whatever the facts turn out to be.

Roger Pearse

Everything should be published, regardless of religious (that includes atheism) considerations. If it is genuine, great, although I don't quite see how it would 'prove' anything important about whether Christianity is true or not; if the find is not genuine then we need to know.

The difficulty with this poll is that it's *words*. What people *do* is always something different.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jules?

please explain how.

If evidence was dug up that climate change, catastrophe caused a slave revolt, and plenty of writers speculate that Thera was responsible, how would that change history?

If those same slaves ended up settling in the harsh highlands of Canaanite spending their time writing grand tales of their origins , which they expand upon by borrowing freely from other local cultures and then build a little copy of an Egyptian temple with its little house of god. copying the Priests of Amun by shaving their bodies, sacrificing bulls and making themselves king makers. If this was all true how would it change a thing?

It would be like an archaeologist of the future finding the remains of St Pancras train station and the public then assuming that Harry Potter was a real person. Could the public of the future really be that stupid?

Solitary Man

After your questions.

Well, now we would know that a climate change catastrophe caused (nice alliteration, btw) a slave revolt.

Would we have known the whole history of this culture and their origins? If our current theories about their origins didn't match the archaeological evidence, than we'd have to change our theories, would we not?

Wow. Were did that come form? Who said anything about this making the claims of the Bible true?

Now back to your first question:

Current theories about the origins of the Hebrews are that they were localized Canaanites, not actually expats from Egypt. Linguistic, archaeological, and comparative data all suggests this, so if the Hebrews really did come from Egypt, current theories would have to be greatly revised. As it stands, the out of Egypt hypothesis is really only being pushed by a minority of scholars.

pob14

Although some would disagree, I believe there is a difference between being an agnostic and being a raging pussy. These people have crossed that line. Or they are lying to you. Or some such thing.