Freethought & Rationalism Archive

reniaa · 12-11-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

You say you are an archeaologist Hex?

What do archaeologists think when discoveries back up the Bible for example?

Hex probably thinks what the majority of archaeologists think, that it would be quite strange if the Bible DID NOT contain some accurate historical claims. That is because it is to be expected that ALL cultures will record secular events that happen where they live, and that MANY secular historical claims in religious books AND secular books are probably true. Why wouldn't they be true? Everyone does not tell lies.

Your main problem is your assumption that accurate secular claims automatically verify supernatural claims. No competent archaeologist or historian believes that. Secular events can easily be demonstrated by anyone. On the other hand, not even one single supernatural event can be demonstrated by anyone. Clearly, secular events and supernatural events ARE NOT the same. If a man who you know and consider to be a trustworthy source told you that he saw an ordinary barnyard pig sprout wings and fly, and that the pig came back and had a conversation with him, would you believe him? Of course not, but why not since he would have already told many secular things that you knew were true? You can't have it both ways. If accurate secular claims reasonably verify supernatural claims, then in order to be consistent, you would have to believe any claim that a man told you who you believed was a trustworthy source regarding secular events.

If the Bible had contained accurate predictions regarding when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured, we would not be having this discussion. If a God exists, it is obvioulsy his intent to invite dissent, not to discourage dissent. No rational person would ever accept a God who invited dissent when he could easily discourage it.

One problem with Bibical archaeology is that we do not find much of what we ought to find. The Exodus and the Ten Plagues are some good examples. Regarding the Exodus, at the GRD Forum, you used David Rohl as a source. A fairly recent thread at the BC&H Forum reasonably proves that Rohl is a fraud. The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=223171.

Regarding the Ten Plagues, if they occured, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. As history shows, that did not happen.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../982front.html

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

How do you explain that?

By the way, since you want to know what the opinions of archaeologists are, I suggest that you contact some archaeologists at some leading colleges, not just one archaeologist at this forum.

Well take to much hard work lol but that we had one that admitted it so I was curious

Hex · 12-11-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

You say you are an archeaologist Hex?

I don't just say it, I've got the Ph.D. to back it up ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

What do archeaologist think when discoveries back up the bible for example

Quote:

2 THE HOUSE OF DAVID INSCRIPTION
<description snipped, but easily found at http://biblicalstudies.info/top10/schoville.htm as item #2>

I'm just curious how Archeaologists feel when they find stuff like this, which in this case was an accidental find after a extensive archeaological dig for many years, which hadn't realised much in itself till this find?

Okay ... First off, let me just say that for most all of the 'revisionist' activity that can be seen in Biblical archaeology, there are very few who dispute that the Isrealites are in place in Palestine by the Iron Age Period 1 (IA1) which spans roughly from 1200-1000 BC. We've got plenty of archaeological evidence, though it can be tricky at times to determine who's who (Isrealite artifact suites are very much like Philistine suites, and at some time periods, they're not only using the -same- pottery, but also arranging their buildings the -same- way. Luckily, pig bones can still be a diagnostic!) There -are- questions raised as to whether or not they were a full kingdom at that time or still of a tribal socio-political arrangement.

So, the 'House of David' Inscription on the tablet is not breaking news. In fact, none of the items mentioned on that page are very dramatic in convincing archaeologists. Why? Because those items, mentions, documentations are in the realm of the day-to-day. As much as the the 'House of David' Inscription was 'accidentally' discovered (the broken pieces were re-used as a wall - a not unusal occurance) it doesn't give much of anything revelatory. It doesn't change the context of the site as a whole, or even the interpretation of the archaeological evidence of the entire area. That said, it does add to the already existing context to put things in (perhaps) a tighter context. Check out Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt, William M. Schniedewind, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 302. (May, 1996), pp. 75-90.. It's a very nice discussion of what you can and can't get from the stelea.

Quote:

The real issue concerns the underlying probability of a ninth century inscription referring to David or, in this case, the "house of David" (note Davies 1994; Freedman and Geoghegan 1995). However, there is sufficient archaeological evidence from the early tenth century B.C.E. to indicate that there was a centralized administration in Palestine (Halpern 1994: 63; cf. Mazar 1990: 371-98). Archaeological evidence, coupled with a relative vacuum of power in Syria-Mesopotamia and Egypt in the Iron Age IIA, gives little reason to dismiss David or the Davidic monarchy as a late fiction. The fact that further support for the reading "house of David" is now found in the nearly contemporary Moabite Stone has yet to quell the debate (KAI 181:33; cf. Puech 1994: 227; Lemaire 1994a). (pg 75)

Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt, William M. Schniedewind, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 302. (May, 1996), pp. 75-90.

Even William Dever, a rather 'solid' or 'conservative' sort of archaeologist working in Palestine can't put the Isrealites back farther than 1100-1200 BC as anything other than 'hill people'.

Quote:

The thirteenth/twelfth century BCE "Proto-Israelite" entity or polity that I have tried here to characterize archaeologically as an ethnic group was not, of course, homogenous in the beginning, because its members were of diverse origins. We must probably think of most of the highland colonists as "displaced Canaanites" (both geographically and ideologically), including an assortment of urban refugees, social dropouts and malcontents, migrant farmers, resedentarized pastoralists, perhaps some Shasu-like bedouin and other immigrants from Transjordan, and even some newcomers from Syria and Anatolia. All these peoples were among those displaced by the radical socio-economic and cultural upheavals at the end of the Bronze Age toward the late thirteenth century BCE. But the new alignments that followed soon produced, among the other coalitions, our "Proto-Israelites," emerging as an agrarian socio-economic movement on the highland frontier, and thus with sufficient solidarity to constitute an "ethnic group." This group certainly possessed an ideology as part of its self-awareness (although this is difficult to discern archaeologically) and perhaps pronounced "reformed tendencies,
as such dissident groups have often had.

The foregoing seems to me to be the most likely scenario at the moment for the origins and early development of ancient Israel. Yet it must be confessed that it is in sharp contrast to the biblical tradition of the Exodus and Conquest -- a theological dilemma that few archaeologists, those who precipitated the current crises about "Israelite origins" -- are willing to face. (pp 210-1)

Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel's Origins, William G. Dever, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 58, No. 4, Pots & People. (Dec., 1995), pp. 200-213.

In this context, to me as an archaeologist, when something like the 'House of David' Inscription comes up, it just seems like we're getting to picking nits. Whether Saul, David and Solomon existed as specific individuals who did everything the OT ascribes to them makes little difference in the bigger archaeological picture. Why? Because we've established that the Isrealites are there by that time. If the stelea is from the 800's BC, then we've got two hundred years or so to play with, and it's not so amazing to think of a previous king as being elevated to hero-status. (Think here: Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree and not lie about it? Did he toss a coin across the Potomac River? Did he lead the Continental Army against the British forces?

)

And, none of this means -anything- to what I was talking about in the OP. Here, I was addressing the idea of making -everything- in the OT true, literal. Thus, reniaa, you bring up one occurance and say 'well, this is true, doesn't that make you wrong?', and I can point back to the Washington analogy - It's true he was the commander in chief, but the other two items are falsely ascribed to him. Does the inclusion of one fact negate the falsehood of the other two? No.

Take a simple account of the extraordinary conquest of the city of Jericho. Seven times 'round the city, blow the horn, and Yahweh makes the world stand still and the walls collapse so that the Isrealites can win. Now, archaeologists have found Jericho, and it had walls. Does that mean the OT account is true? No. The timing is all wrong. If you want a humorous read check out this thread (Warning, it's a Larsguy thread, so it's messy ... But the rebuttals are full of the archaeological and scientific information.)

What troubles archaeologists most about taking the OT literally isn't the simple day-to-day stuff of the Monarchy period or that of Judges (although the times keep getting younger and younger), but rather the miracles that are to be taken literally.

Where are the plagues of Egypt and exodus of the Hebrews archaeologically? (Read here for afdave's attempts to convince us, and our attempts to show where his logic has gaping holes. Or here with Helo.)

We often have Noah's Ark folks who get hit with biodiversity questions and the whole lack of geological evidence for the flood itself, or the structural issues of building a vessel that size out of wood and where would you put all the animals and their food and how do you dispose of the wastes if it's all sealed up and how the marsupials and monotremes end up -only- in Australia and the Pacific Islands nearby ... and so on ... :huh:

So in the context of the whole story of the OT who the first 'king' of the Isrealites is, or when -exactly- we see the state of Isreal in Palestine arising matters little. We can always get to a point where we say, 'it's myth up to this point, and then it's at least somewhat factual', but first we have to get people to recognize that it starts off as myth that's unsupportable by science. And archaeology is a science that's extremely relevant to such issues.

- Hex

(Ummm ... Did I actually answer your question in there, reniaa?)

-Jay- · 12-11-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

If you look at the beginning hex describes himself as an archeaologist unless I read it wrong i just wanted an archeaologist's perspective. which would interest me?

I'm quite familiar with (and have a great deal of respect for) Hex. My question was what such a find meant to you? What do you take away from the fact that an inscription mentioning the House of David was found?

regards,

NinJay

Merlin · 12-11-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Perhaps it's just me, but after some of the discussants here (dramatic examples could be Larsguy and afdave) have gone to great links to reconcile a literal belief of the Bible (especially the OT) with the factual evidence of archaeology/ historical documentation.

As an archaeologist, I'm of course of the opinion that artifacts trump documents, and a wealth of agreeing documentation trumps a single source. In this instance, I have issues with a literal view of the OT. The lack of geological/ genetic evidence of a 'great flood' and the lack of archaeological/ documentary evidence for the plagues of Egypt or the ensuing exodus cast enough doubt in my mind that I just logically couldn't see a literal interpretation of the OT, case closed.

Now, with that in mind, when I see something like Harpur's work getting such publicity, I can only think that Christians are looking for ways to discount a literal view in order to hang onto the structure/worldview of the NT and thus have a basis for the messages encoded within.

Why is it that so many people cannot simple push the OT into the 'myth/legend' category, but seem to need to have it all, word for word (in the KJV :Cheeky: ) be true?

I just don't get it. :huh:

Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus. Nothing more needed.
Still, Jesus taught from the OT.
He accepted it as true.

Headache · 12-11-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

(Ummm ... Did I actually answer your question in there, reniaa?)

Thank you, hex!

As an ignorant when it comes to archeology, it was refreshing to hear what always has been my idea of how it must be evaluated. Not that I ever thought my idea would happen to coincide with the view of a Ph. D. in archeology. But I have really never seen any other way of looking at it from a pure reasoning point of view.

Gamera · 12-11-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Perhaps it's just me, but after some of the discussants here (dramatic examples could be Larsguy and afdave) have gone to great links to reconcile a literal belief of the Bible (especially the OT) with the factual evidence of archaeology/ historical documentation.

As an archaeologist, I'm of course of the opinion that artifacts trump documents, and a wealth of agreeing documentation trumps a single source. In this instance, I have issues with a literal view of the OT. The lack of geological/ genetic evidence of a 'great flood' and the lack of archaeological/ documentary evidence for the plagues of Egypt or the ensuing exodus cast enough doubt in my mind that I just logically couldn't see a literal interpretation of the OT, case closed.

Now, with that in mind, when I see something like Harpur's work getting such publicity, I can only think that Christians are looking for ways to discount a literal view in order to hang onto the structure/worldview of the NT and thus have a basis for the messages encoded within.

Why is it that so many people cannot simple push the OT into the 'myth/legend' category, but seem to need to have it all, word for word (in the KJV :Cheeky: ) be true?

I just don't get it. :huh:

Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus. Nothing more needed.
Still, Jesus taught from the OT.
He accepted it as true.

Did he?

You have assumed the conclusion. The fact that Jesus mentions the OT doesn't mean his attitude was literal. Indeed, his whole ministry was to distinguish his ministry from the OT. Indeed, one of the few OT passages he actually quotes is metaphorical on its face and cannot be taken literally:

Matthew 19:5 - and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

Even literalists don't claim married people become a single blob of flesh when they marry.

Buck Laser · 12-11-2007, 02:00 PM

As a Xn, I don't think I ever expected the Bible to be literally true. In fact, it's pretty much self-evident to me that it isn't to be taken literally. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the events described in the Bible did happen as described. It's just that I don't know which ones for certain.

Clearly (to me, at least), many of the major themes in the Bible are described in mythic terms, simply because they deal with ideas/concepts that aren't really understandable within a rigidly rational framework. Creation, the flood, the exodus from Egypt, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus--all these are mythic events. They do not depend for their truth upon whether or not someone with a video camera could have recorded the events. Rather, they are ways of stating universal truths in ways that people could understand.

If I say "everything a human being touches turns to shit," most would recognize that I'm talking about how people invariably screw up. What better way to explain that to people than to tell of a mythical time when people didn't screw up?

Please understand that I'm not campaigning for people to accept or approve the view I hold. If you want to believe the Bible is a useless collection of fairy tales, that's fine with me--and if you want to believe that every single word was dictated by God, that's OK too. Just don't try to force me to sign up for either one.

Gamera · 12-11-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Perhaps it's just me, but after some of the discussants here (dramatic examples could be Larsguy and afdave) have gone to great links to reconcile a literal belief of the Bible (especially the OT) with the factual evidence of archaeology/ historical documentation.

As an archaeologist, I'm of course of the opinion that artifacts trump documents, and a wealth of agreeing documentation trumps a single source. In this instance, I have issues with a literal view of the OT. The lack of geological/ genetic evidence of a 'great flood' and the lack of archaeological/ documentary evidence for the plagues of Egypt or the ensuing exodus cast enough doubt in my mind that I just logically couldn't see a literal interpretation of the OT, case closed.

Now, with that in mind, when I see something like Harpur's work getting such publicity, I can only think that Christians are looking for ways to discount a literal view in order to hang onto the structure/worldview of the NT and thus have a basis for the messages encoded within.

Why is it that so many people cannot simple push the OT into the 'myth/legend' category, but seem to need to have it all, word for word (in the KJV :Cheeky: ) be true?

I just don't get it. :huh:

They are insecure and also don't want to deal with the meaning of the Christain Scriptures, since they require rejection of the materialism and selfishness that defines our culture.

Merlin · 12-11-2007, 03:50 PM

Like Luke 4

14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.
15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read.
17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him,

21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

aa5874 · 12-11-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Laser

As a Xn, I don't think I ever expected the Bible to be literally true. In fact, it's pretty much self-evident to me that it isn't to be taken literally. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the events described in the Bible did happen as described. It's just that I don't know which ones for certain.

Don't you believe everything that God did in the Bible is true?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2007, 02:00 PM	#27
Buck Laser Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 565	As a Xn, I don't think I ever expected the Bible to be literally true. In fact, it's pretty much self-evident to me that it isn't to be taken literally. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that some of the events described in the Bible did happen as described. It's just that I don't know which ones for certain. Clearly (to me, at least), many of the major themes in the Bible are described in mythic terms, simply because they deal with ideas/concepts that aren't really understandable within a rigidly rational framework. Creation, the flood, the exodus from Egypt, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus--all these are mythic events. They do not depend for their truth upon whether or not someone with a video camera could have recorded the events. Rather, they are ways of stating universal truths in ways that people could understand. If I say "everything a human being touches turns to shit," most would recognize that I'm talking about how people invariably screw up. What better way to explain that to people than to tell of a mythical time when people didn't screw up? Please understand that I'm not campaigning for people to accept or approve the view I hold. If you want to believe the Bible is a useless collection of fairy tales, that's fine with me--and if you want to believe that every single word was dictated by God, that's OK too. Just don't try to force me to sign up for either one.

12-11-2007, 03:50 PM	#29
Merlin Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Avalon Island Posts: 282	Like Luke 4 14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. 16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." 20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.