Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 03-16-2002, 05:53 AM

I agree with the above criticism on me that I put out my quotes from US WORLD on Ronny Reich without doing my homework first! So, I hope to rectify this below:

Ronny Reich is considered one of Israel's head experts in archeology. Since 1978, he has worked for the Israel Antiquities Authority and is responsible for the Dung Gate and Robinson�s Arch excavations.

Ronny Reich is definitely an apologist/biased in trying to prove the Old Testament is correct. His statement quoted in US World does not mean that pottery has not been found in Jerusalem. (Omnedon1, Your link to the book proves this beyond a doubt!) He was making an apology that because pottery was not found in one particular dig, that this can be extrapolated to mean that the lack of archeological evidence for an Israelite conquest might not prove anything.

But an article by Reich also tells how "the Israel Antiquities Authority has a computerized list of over 14,000 sites", which "together with the very small size of the country, gives Israel the highest ratio of ancient sites per area in the world."

So Reich's analogy is a weak one, although his authority and experience commands a lot of weight and respect by both archeologists and the lay.

****************************

I consider myself open-minded and therefore like to look carefully at the positions taken by experts on BOTH sides of a position. (ie as a skeptic, I reserve a right to be skeptical of OTHER skeptics.)

In searching to find experts on BOTH sides of the issue, I found this apologist link
written by a Rabbi Dovid Lichtman. Although in it he rails against revisionists (such as Finklestein) for not being honest, in a reply to one of the letters to his article Rabbi Licthman admits he has also not been honest! That is, he only included archeological evidence that SUPPORTED the Bible, while OMMITTING any examples or weaknesses that went against the Bible.

Looking at his evidence, he seemed to have stronger examples showing the existance of an Israelite country around that time of King David (with an actual king of that name), than he did of a large Exodus. The latter point came out also in one of his letters where he extensively quoted Professor Dever -- but ommitted that Dever states that his archelogy digs ALSO suggest that MOST of the Israelites in Palestine did not originate from Egypt! (A material ommission in my mind!)

<a href="http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp</a>

Until more evidence is in -- I think one can state with much higher confidence that the stories in the Old Testament were exaggerated --rather than an outright fabrication!

Sojourner

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Jayhawker Soule · 03-18-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
Until more evidence is in -- I think one can state with much higher confidence that the stories in the Old Testament were exaggerated --rather than an outright fabrication!

The Wizard of Oz is not an outright fabrication. There is, in fact, a land called Kansas. Virtually every study of the area suggests that much of it constitues farm land where pet dogs and tornados are relatively common. But none of this constitutes a reason to believe in Munchkins.

At issue is the extent to which the Torah can be shown to represent something more than a mix of myth, folk history, poetry, and jingoistic propaganda. While I applaud your open mindedness, asserting that the Torah is not "an outright fabrication" seems neither particularly bold nor particularly clarifying.

Sojourner553 · 03-18-2002, 09:59 AM

___________________________________________
The Wizard of Oz is not an outright fabrication. There is, in fact, a land called Kansas. Virtually every study of the area suggests that much of it constitues farm land where pet dogs and tornados are relatively common. But none of this constitutes a reason to believe in Munchkins.

At issue is the extent to which the Torah can be shown to represent something more than a mix of myth, folk history, poetry, and jingoistic propaganda. While I applaud your open mindedness, asserting that the Torah is not "an outright fabrication" seems neither particularly bold nor particularly clarifying.

_____________________________________

Ha ha. I think you miss my point.

When one is in a debate -- I think it is important not to structure one's hypthosis in an absolute dogmatic way -- to claim with 100% certainty the Bible stores are wrong/never happened.

For if doubt is cast on even ONE point (say out of a thousand, It doesn't matter the stats) -- the hypothesis is still held as being disproven and therefore wrong! The psychology of this is difficult to overcome among observers of such a debate.

Why not stick to the safer premise that it appears there is a great deal of hyperbole in the Old Testament and then list the details.

It is MUCH easier to prove that if there was an Exodus, it was a small group as the majority of Israelites appears to have already lived in Palestine --> than to assert (without 100% knowledge) that the event could never have occurred -- not even with a band of 5 men and a girl.

Your Oz example -- while funny -- is not relevant because proof of the existance of Kansas does not
imply the existance of Oz. (Just an FYI, I heard a story once that Baum got the name of Oz as the characters he saw on his second cabinet drawer, O-Z).

Sojourner

Jayhawker Soule · 03-18-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
Ha ha. I think you miss my point. When one is in a debate -- I think it is important not to structure one's hypthosis in an absolute dogmatic way -- to claim with 100% certainty the Bible stores are wrong/never happened.

Perhaps that is because your point is so fluid.

You entered the 'debate' to bring aid and comfort to our theistic friend Nomad. Guess who talks about "100%" - you and Nomad!

So what is your point? Perhaps this helps:

Quote:

My point is -- just like evolution is most likely true despite the fact scientists have not always found bones clearly showing transitions between species, the same parallel principle applies here in archeology ...

... i.e., the historicity of the Torah is right up there with the accuracy of evolution; both are "most likely true" despite some unfortunate gaps in the record.

You have every right to hold such a position. Suggesting, however, that you're doing no more than instructing us on effective debating techniques or warning us of the evils of 'absolute dogmatism' seems a bit disingenuous.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Sojourner553 · 03-18-2002, 07:42 PM

To Reasonable Doubt:
_____________________________________________
HERE IS WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:

�My point is -- just like evolution is most likely true despite the fact scientists have not always found bones clearly showing transitions between species, the same parallel principle applies here in archeology: There probably have not been enough digs/evidence yet to state with confidence that the Exodus and King Solomon periods did not occur at all!�

�I would give it a high probability that a very large percentage of the Exodus and Davidic accounts are greatly exaggerated. But it requires a very high bar of proof to say they did not exist at all -- ie that 100% of it is false.�
_____________________________________________

HERE IS HOW YOU SUMMARIZED WHAT I SAID:

... i.e., the historicity of the Torah is right up there with the accuracy of evolution; both are "most likely true" despite some unfortunate gaps in the record.

__________________________________
You had to cut and paste to come up with such a gross distortion.

Here is the correct summary: I suspect that a very scaled down version of some of the stories in the Torah are true. I would also assume that the literal stories as told in the Bible have a high percentage of hyperbole/myths in them.

I do try and examine every position by looking at both sides. I then present the other side's views (even when I disagree with its premise) -- It's a fairness issue with me. I will stand up for any religious poster, when I think they have a shred of evidence that supports their view(s).

You seem to have a black vs white mentality -- it's 100% true or 100% false; while I view many broad based statements on a continuum with shades of grey for probabilities.

If you had carefully read the context of my statements you would clearly have seen your distortion.

Sojourner

Jayhawker Soule · 03-19-2002, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
You seem to have a black vs white mentality -- it's 100% true or 100% false; while I view many broad based statements on a continuum with shades of grey for probabilities.

Yes, you do.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-19-2002, 10:19 AM

I just brought up the <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/" target="_blank">Biblical Archaeology Society</a> website and found, curiously positioned directly under the "breaking news" banner, two links to "articles of continuing interest, as chosen by our editors.": "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" by Ze'ev Herzog, and "Herzog's Attack on the Bible Unjustified" by Hershel Shanks. Both of these articles first appeared in 1999. Interesting choices.

Sojourner553 · 03-19-2002, 10:52 AM

Good articles.

I first read how Kathleen Kenyon had used pottery shards to argue Jericho was not attacked by Israelites -- some 10 maybe 15 years ago.

Regarding the historicity of the Exodus:
Per Hershel Shanks:

"[Herzog] admits that "many [Egyptian] documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta." This suggests that it is at least plausible that the Israelites (or the Israelites in formation) were among these groups. And Herzog fails to mention that the Egyptians tell us that these shepherds (and others) came from Asia and that they settled in precisely the area where the Bible tells us the Israelites settled.

Herzog counters, however, that "this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional." Does this prove that the Israelites were not one of these groups? Hardly. Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there. Yet that is all he says to prove his major point."

___________________________________________

This is what I mean by evaluating such questions in shades of grey, or probabilities-- as opposed to making dogmatic (black vs white) statements. I think atheist fundamentalist dogma is JUST as bad as religious fundamentalist dogma; (where dogma is defined as an agenda or assertion that is based as much -- if not more -- on ideology than the facts.)

Sojourner

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Jayhawker Soule · 03-19-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
Good articles.

< snip >

This is what I mean by evaluating such questions in shades of grey, or probabilities-- as opposed to making dogmatic (black vs white) statements. I think atheist fundamentalist dogma is JUST as bad as religious fundamentalist dogma; (where dogma is defined as an agenda or assertion that is based as much -- if not more -- on ideology than the facts.)

Sojourner

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Thanks once again for a bold and courageous stand on behalf of the grey-scale and ambiguity.

Actually, my point was not so much that the articles were 'good', but that they were over two years old as opposed to, for example, <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbBARFeature2.html" target="_blank">Dancing in Denver by Hershal Shanks</a> which apears in the current issue of BAR. I was particularly interested in his discussion of the ASOR plenary session, where he begins by noting:

Quote:

The session revealed how far the concerns of scholars are from those of most readers of the Bible. In certain respects, the two groups are not even speaking the same language. Ancient Israel, it turns out, means something entirely different to scholars than it does to the unwashed masses.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Sojourner553 · 03-19-2002, 04:39 PM

__________________________________________
Thanks once again for a bold and courageous stand on behalf of the grey-scale and ambiguity.
____________________________________________

Better than inventing certainty!!!

Have you ever take a Statistics class? Let me give you a hint: The vast majority of answers to a statistics problem do not result in the integer 0.000000 or the integer 1.000000.

Hershel Shanks does not say anything significantly different between the two years:

Both quotes show:

*Hershel Shanks' viewpoint is not 100% SIMILAR to the picture of the Bible for the masses...

*But it is also not necessarily 100% DIFFERENT from the picture given in the Bible for the masses.

You can't handle this "ambiguity" as it falls in a statistical scale "somewhere" between the numbers 0 (ie 0% accurate) and 1 (ie 100% accurate).

Back to Statistics 101 for you!

You obviously made an "A+" in Fundamentalism 101 class!

Sojourner

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

03-16-2002, 05:53 AM	#41
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	I agree with the above criticism on me that I put out my quotes from US WORLD on Ronny Reich without doing my homework first! So, I hope to rectify this below: Ronny Reich is considered one of Israel's head experts in archeology. Since 1978, he has worked for the Israel Antiquities Authority and is responsible for the Dung Gate and Robinson�s Arch excavations. Ronny Reich is definitely an apologist/biased in trying to prove the Old Testament is correct. His statement quoted in US World does not mean that pottery has not been found in Jerusalem. (Omnedon1, Your link to the book proves this beyond a doubt!) He was making an apology that because pottery was not found in one particular dig, that this can be extrapolated to mean that the lack of archeological evidence for an Israelite conquest might not prove anything. But an article by Reich also tells how "the Israel Antiquities Authority has a computerized list of over 14,000 sites", which "together with the very small size of the country, gives Israel the highest ratio of ancient sites per area in the world." So Reich's analogy is a weak one, although his authority and experience commands a lot of weight and respect by both archeologists and the lay. **************************** I consider myself open-minded and therefore like to look carefully at the positions taken by experts on BOTH sides of a position. (ie as a skeptic, I reserve a right to be skeptical of OTHER skeptics.) In searching to find experts on BOTH sides of the issue, I found this apologist link written by a Rabbi Dovid Lichtman. Although in it he rails against revisionists (such as Finklestein) for not being honest, in a reply to one of the letters to his article Rabbi Licthman admits he has also not been honest! That is, he only included archeological evidence that SUPPORTED the Bible, while OMMITTING any examples or weaknesses that went against the Bible. Looking at his evidence, he seemed to have stronger examples showing the existance of an Israelite country around that time of King David (with an actual king of that name), than he did of a large Exodus. The latter point came out also in one of his letters where he extensively quoted Professor Dever -- but ommitted that Dever states that his archelogy digs ALSO suggest that MOST of the Israelites in Palestine did not originate from Egypt! (A material ommission in my mind!) <a href="http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp</a> Until more evidence is in -- I think one can state with much higher confidence that the stories in the Old Testament were exaggerated --rather than an outright fabrication! Sojourner [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ] [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

03-19-2002, 10:52 AM	#48
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Good articles. I first read how Kathleen Kenyon had used pottery shards to argue Jericho was not attacked by Israelites -- some 10 maybe 15 years ago. Regarding the historicity of the Exodus: Per Hershel Shanks: "[Herzog] admits that "many [Egyptian] documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta." This suggests that it is at least plausible that the Israelites (or the Israelites in formation) were among these groups. And Herzog fails to mention that the Egyptians tell us that these shepherds (and others) came from Asia and that they settled in precisely the area where the Bible tells us the Israelites settled. Herzog counters, however, that "this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional." Does this prove that the Israelites were not one of these groups? Hardly. Herzog's point is perhaps that the story could have been invented years later. Of course that it is possible. But the reverse is equally possible. He has surely not proved that Israel was not there. Yet that is all he says to prove his major point." ___________________________________________ This is what I mean by evaluating such questions in shades of grey, or probabilities-- as opposed to making dogmatic (black vs white) statements. I think atheist fundamentalist dogma is JUST as bad as religious fundamentalist dogma; (where dogma is defined as an agenda or assertion that is based as much -- if not more -- on ideology than the facts.) Sojourner [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

03-19-2002, 04:39 PM	#50
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	__________________________________________ Thanks once again for a bold and courageous stand on behalf of the grey-scale and ambiguity. ____________________________________________ Better than inventing certainty!!! Have you ever take a Statistics class? Let me give you a hint: The vast majority of answers to a statistics problem do not result in the integer 0.000000 or the integer 1.000000. Hershel Shanks does not say anything significantly different between the two years: Both quotes show: Hershel Shanks' viewpoint is not 100% SIMILAR to the picture of the Bible for the masses... But it is also not necessarily 100% DIFFERENT from the picture given in the Bible for the masses. You can't handle this "ambiguity" as it falls in a statistical scale "somewhere" between the numbers 0 (ie 0% accurate) and 1 (ie 100% accurate). Back to Statistics 101 for you! You obviously made an "A+" in Fundamentalism 101 class! Sojourner [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

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

03-18-2002, 09:59 AM	#43
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	___________________________________________ The Wizard of Oz is not an outright fabrication. There is, in fact, a land called Kansas. Virtually every study of the area suggests that much of it constitues farm land where pet dogs and tornados are relatively common. But none of this constitutes a reason to believe in Munchkins. At issue is the extent to which the Torah can be shown to represent something more than a mix of myth, folk history, poetry, and jingoistic propaganda. While I applaud your open mindedness, asserting that the Torah is not "an outright fabrication" seems neither particularly bold nor particularly clarifying. _____________________________________ Ha ha. I think you miss my point. When one is in a debate -- I think it is important not to structure one's hypthosis in an absolute dogmatic way -- to claim with 100% certainty the Bible stores are wrong/never happened. For if doubt is cast on even ONE point (say out of a thousand, It doesn't matter the stats) -- the hypothesis is still held as being disproven and therefore wrong! The psychology of this is difficult to overcome among observers of such a debate. Why not stick to the safer premise that it appears there is a great deal of hyperbole in the Old Testament and then list the details. It is MUCH easier to prove that if there was an Exodus, it was a small group as the majority of Israelites appears to have already lived in Palestine --> than to assert (without 100% knowledge) that the event could never have occurred -- not even with a band of 5 men and a girl. Your Oz example -- while funny -- is not relevant because proof of the existance of Kansas does not imply the existance of Oz. (Just an FYI, I heard a story once that Baum got the name of Oz as the characters he saw on his second cabinet drawer, O-Z). Sojourner

03-18-2002, 07:42 PM	#45
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	To Reasonable Doubt: _____________________________________________ HERE IS WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID: �My point is -- just like evolution is most likely true despite the fact scientists have not always found bones clearly showing transitions between species, the same parallel principle applies here in archeology: There probably have not been enough digs/evidence yet to state with confidence that the Exodus and King Solomon periods did not occur at all!� �I would give it a high probability that a very large percentage of the Exodus and Davidic accounts are greatly exaggerated. But it requires a very high bar of proof to say they did not exist at all -- ie that 100% of it is false.� _____________________________________________ HERE IS HOW YOU SUMMARIZED WHAT I SAID: ... i.e., the historicity of the Torah is right up there with the accuracy of evolution; both are "most likely true" despite some unfortunate gaps in the record. __________________________________ You had to cut and paste to come up with such a gross distortion. Here is the correct summary: I suspect that a very scaled down version of some of the stories in the Torah are true. I would also assume that the literal stories as told in the Bible have a high percentage of hyperbole/myths in them. I do try and examine every position by looking at both sides. I then present the other side's views (even when I disagree with its premise) -- It's a fairness issue with me. I will stand up for any religious poster, when I think they have a shred of evidence that supports their view(s). You seem to have a black vs white mentality -- it's 100% true or 100% false; while I view many broad based statements on a continuum with shades of grey for probabilities. If you had carefully read the context of my statements you would clearly have seen your distortion. Sojourner

03-19-2002, 10:19 AM	#47
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	I just brought up the <a href="http://www.bib-arch.org/" target="_blank">Biblical Archaeology Society</a> website and found, curiously positioned directly under the "breaking news" banner, two links to "articles of continuing interest, as chosen by our editors.": "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" by Ze'ev Herzog, and "Herzog's Attack on the Bible Unjustified" by Hershel Shanks. Both of these articles first appeared in 1999. Interesting choices.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.