WILLOWTREE

To Topic Creator:

Celsus is an atheist.

Therefore he casts persons with the same worldview as him to be mainstream.

Anyone who concludes for the Bible is described negatively.

When attempting to understand archaeology the first thing you must do is determine the worldview of the archaeologist or scientist or scholar.

This will inform you of their starting presuppositions which are generally packaged as settled fact.

Atheists try hard to hide their worldview concerning any Biblical conclusions for obvious reasons.

I advise that you begin with C.W. Ceram's "Gods, Graves, and Scholars" as it is THE classic on the history of archaeology.

Willowtree

Julian

First of all, in what way would Ceram's book address The Whiffle Man's request regarding biblical archaeology? He wasn't asking for a general read.

Secondly, the ad hominem versus Celsus (Contra Celsum, get it? ) is unwarranted. You are clearly not familiar with Celsus' posts and your ignorance is showing.

You do not start by 'determining the worldview' of the scholar who writes a book. You start by evaluating his evidence. That is also how you end. A biased scholar may, indeed, bias his evidence but, then again, he may not. To judge his findings by judging his worldview is ignorant. Look at his case on its merits.

Funny how you christians get awfully defensive when confronted with real science. Can't your god withstand a little scutiny? Of course, arcchaeology is a field where almost nothing has been found in favor of your book and much against it. That would explain your closeminded post

Julian

Celsus

Why do I respond to this sort of classical ad hominem? At least I should be grateful that Willowtree made sure it was a proper argumentum ad hominem and not merely an insult, I suppose.

Willowtree, if you were in any way familiar with what my views on archaeology, you'll note that I do not agree with everything that Stern says, much less so Mazar, whom I've critiqued plenty of times in defense of Finkelstein's chronology at Tel Rehov, Tell Beit Mirsim, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. But what would I know, I'm just an atheist... How about you put forth the case that your Rohlian/Velikovskian chronology or whatever you think is mainstream is in fact mainstream? You cite number of accredited scholars that specifically agree with your "mainstream" chronology (whatever that is), and I'll cite those that disagree with it or use other chronologies. First person to list 50 scholars (plus their works in which they mention their chronology) wins.

Joel

P.S. Note that Ceram's book dates to 1953, is general (i.e., swings about the place over many different fields), and is a popularisation. I recommend P.R.S. Moorey's A Century of Biblical Archaeology in contrast.

Amaleq13

As pointed out already, the assertions made about Celsus are inappropriate as well as unsubstantiated but, ultimately, irrelevant to a rational discussion of the subject. Stick the facts and keep the rhetoric to yourself.

spin

I thought we'd lost this person who has nothing positive to contribute, who knows little about the subjects we are dealing with, who shows no coherent methodology to justify his thought.

Total rubbish. This guy has such a chip on his shoulder to bear. And before he starts on me, just let me clarify -- I'm an agnostic. Now, you can fly off the handle a little more accurately.

Ceram is a know-nothing's giude to archaeology and makes the reader feel happy though doesn't provide much at all in the way of useful background to studying bib arch, as it looks at archaeology in general across the near east.

I'd recommend the conservative Jewish archaeologist Amihai Mazar, "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible", Anchor, for a serious grounding in Palestinian archaeology. Conservative means that he doesn't follow the more recently radical developments in biblical analysis which have rightly rejected as fictional the exodus and the conquest, and rejected David and his son Solomon. Mazar gives it as close to the bible as he feels it reasonable to do. Nevertheless, there is a lot of archaeology in the book; he looks at numerous sites and compares them. You get to know the similarities and developments. (It ends with the exile.)

Because of religious motivation there is a dearth of Palestinian archaeology books that cover the post-exilic period.

Finkelstein and Silberman would be better read after you've been through Mazar: you'll have a better starting position and will be more in a position to be critical of what you read.


spin

spin

Eek

In my circles to mention that someone may support Rohl or Velikovsky is an ad hominem. At least Rohl, a one trick pony, knows hieroglyphic. Velikovsky didn't even know his source languages and made howling blunders.


spin

Celsus

Mazar does reject the exodus and conquest (well, parts of it), but we probably shouldn't let Willowtree know this, since we're trying to brainwash everyone.

Joel

P.S., Sorry for the Rohl/Velikovsky ad hom. :rolling:

Duke Leto

Hey didn't you say you were leaving and not coming back? Lying is a sin ya know!

WILLOWTREE

Mod:

Please advise me as to specifically I did that was wrong.

I pointed out the worldview of a person.

The same applies to me of course.

Is this against the IIDB rules ?

Please rule before I answer Celsus.

Thank you,

WT

WILLOWTREE

Attempt to stake out a position of objectivity that does not exist.

IOW, my opponent here is asserting that x is objective.

Could opponent and x share the same worldview ?

Answer: Duh.

FYI I am very acquainted with Celsus's posts.

He is extremely knowledgeable about archaeology - no question. His knowledge exceeds my own.

But this is not the issue.

The issue is minimalism, and I should of cast him as such instead of pointing out worldview.

Mini/Maxi are they not euphemisms for theist/atheist ?

Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University (philosophies of education):

"Everyone has an axe to grind.....objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it."

EVERY writer assumes a host of presuppositions as fact. Determining the worldview of the author informs the reader accordingly.

This is step two, other than this we agree.

Everyone is biased.

To deny is to admit that you are also a liar.

Where ?

Comment assumes as fact christianity is far removed from "real science".

What else could an atheist assert ?

The only archaeology that contradicts the Bible is produced by atheists.

Could their worldview and its starting presuppositions have anything to do with that ?

How could an atheist archaeologist ever conclude for the Bible ?

That would be admitting their worldview is wrong.

Velikovsky was as anti-supernatural as they get and he proved that Biblical chronology was always correct and Egyptian was assumed as such just to "falsify" the O.T.

Velikovsky was the irrefutable exception to the rule. He was atheist and proved the Bible correct.

Velikovsky proves the bias of minimalists today.

Anyone want to open an Ancient History Chronology topic please do.

WT