Roland

I assume that it is pretty much common knowledge in the field of ancient Near Eastern archaeology that many of the sites that Joshua supposedly conquered in the 15th century B.C. show little or no evidence of having been either occupied or even in existence during that particular time period. From what I've been able to gather from such books as "The Bible Unearthed" and "Out of the Desert?", there is no period prior to the 7th century BC when ALL of the cities cited by the Bible as being part of the Conquest were in existence simultaneously. (It would be like writing a story today set during the 15th Century in the area we now know as Nevada and saying that Las Vegas and Reno were already in existence).

That seems like pretty damning evidence and easier to argue than whether or not the Bible has internal consistency or if it is riddled with contradictions. I mean, if an archaeologist can point to a place and say there is no evidence of a Bronze Age settlement ever having existed here, that should pretty much sew up the case against historical accuracy, I would think. Do inerrantists simply ignore these findings or do they find ways to poke holes in the archaeological record?

spamandham

Inerrantists simply argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's the same argument they use for all their absurd claims.

aa5874

But that argument is a fallacy, since things that have always been absent have no evidence.

And, no evidence is a direct function of non-existence.

Therefore, a person cannot claim something exist and also at the same time say they have no evidence of its existence.

Keith&Co.

Yes.
THe correct observation would be that absence of evidence is, indeed, a measurable amount of evidence for absence. It just isn't conclusive evidence, a distinction that seems to elude them.

Doug Shaver

Most inerrantists ignore them. Some of them conjure up various counterarguments. A few just take the position that when scripture is contradicted by any other source of knowledge, the other source must be presumed in error.

Zaphod

I thought the relics were removed and hidden in Syria, just prior to the archaeological digs taking place.

Roland

LOL Yes, that's the Sean Hannity theory of what happened to them.



That's a very good point actually. If "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," how do we know that Saddam Hussein DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction after all?

brettpalmer

I've got a couple of articles on my site dealing with positions inerrantists take in response contrary to their argument. Ultimately, however, just ONE instance of errancy destroys their position. They're a very disingenuous bunch, really.

Minimalist

Yes.


In roughly the same way that they ignore the fact that there is not nearly enough water on the planet to cover the whole earth for Noah's flood.

It's called "magical thinking."

GakuseiDon

I do wish that this type of stereotyping is avoided. It is an opportunity missed. Fundamentalists are very concerned about the science behind showing the Bible is literally correct. IMO the best way to engage them is to show that they are using bad science rather than bad theology. Fundamentalists certainly don't believe they use "magical thinking" to prove the Bible. They would -- rightly IMO -- laugh at anyone who said so.

Here is their "scientific" explanation for where the water came from. Their bad science is their real Achilles heal:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah's flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.[3] This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”...

Dr. Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the flood.[8] In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr. Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the “waters above” could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the earth similar to those around Venus.